The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

On lighter note...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35120539

[eFestivals]

53 minutes ago, LJS said:

On lighter note...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35120539

it's a bit too near the truth of everything to be funny, I'd say.

[THEBOILERMAN]

[LJS]

56 minutes ago, THEBOILERMAN said:

nawbag

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

nawbag

innumeracy is a big problem in Scotland.

Edited December 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

innumeracy is a big problem in Scotland.

No.  Being a fucking mindless dick is apparently cool in Bristol though!

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

No.  Being a fucking mindless dick is apparently cool in Bristol though!

Nope. Innumeracy is a big problem in Scotland.

Even your finance minister is infected with it, making patently false statements about how SRIT would impact on the poorest at twice the rate it would impact on the richest, when (roughly) the opposite is the real case.

So a big lie to avoid being progressive with taxation, and a big lie to avoid being the anti-austerity party they claimed to be ... while snippers like you cheer him for his innumeracy.

While you say a laughable financial view from WoS is "largely correct", and while you say an £8Bn deficit for Scotland beyond the whole-UK's deficit rate is an "irrelevance".

Innumeracy is a big problem in Scotland.

[eFestivals]

and because innumeracy is a big problem in Scotland here's those numbers in black and white.

Using £10k as the tax-free allowance*, and implementing a 1% rise with SRIT:-
(*for ease of working. The current allowance is £10600, with the small difference of £600 adding to the 'progressiveness' of a rise)

someone earning £15k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.33% (an extra £50 pa)
someone earning £20k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.5% (an extra £100 pa)
someone earning £25k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.58% (an extra £150 pa)
someone earning £30k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.66% (an extra £200 pa)
someone earning £40k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.75% (an extra £300 pa)
someone earning £50k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.80% (an extra £400 pa)

So there we have a 'progressive' tax increase via SRIT, while Scotland's finance minister claims it doesn't work like that.

Quote

"Well what that would have done would've put a disproportionate impact, and had a disproportionate impact on the incomes of people in low income households. It would have in fact been about double the effect on the taxable income of individuals at the lower income thresholds rather than people at higher income thresholds and I don't judge that to be the right way to deploy any tax raising changes"

All we need to do now is work out who is the bigger numptie, Swinney for saying it or snippers for believing it.

Tho of course Swinney might know he's talking bollocks and knows snippers are stupid enough to fall for it.... cos if he doesn't know that's the case innumeracy is a much bigger problem in Scotland than even I'm thinking.

 

Edited December 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and because innumeracy is a big problem in Scotland here's those numbers in black and white.

Using £10k as the tax-free allowance*, and implementing a 1% rise with SRIT:-
(*for ease of working. The current allowance is £10600, with the small difference of £600 adding to the 'progressiveness' of a rise)

someone earning £15k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.33% (an extra £50 pa)
someone earning £20k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.5% (an extra £100 pa)
someone earning £25k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.58% (an extra £150 pa)
someone earning £30k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.66% (an extra £200 pa)
someone earning £40k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.75% (an extra £300 pa)
someone earning £50k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.80% (an extra £400 pa)

So there we have a 'progressive' tax increase via SRIT, while Scotland's finance minister claims it doesn't work like that.

All we need to do now is work out who is the bigger numptie, Swinney for saying it or snippers for believing it.

Tho of course Swinney might know he's talking bollocks and knows snippers are stupid enough to fall for it.... cos if he doesn't know that's the case innumeracy is a much bigger problem in Scotland than even I'm thinking.

 

Can you clear a couple of things up here please Neil. I have my view on the tax powers as you know but I`ll come back to that once I`m clear on your view.

Are you suggesting that Mr Swinney should have introduced an income tax rise on households who have an earned income of £15,000 and also households who have an earned income of £20,000 and so on as described in your table above ?

Yes or No ?

Your figures also show a 1% increase on the higher earners. In your opinion, is that what Mr Swinney should have done with the big earners ?

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Can you clear a couple of things up here please Neil. I have my view on the tax powers as you know but I`ll come back to that once I`m clear on your view.

Are you suggesting that Mr Swinney should have introduced an income tax rise on households who have an earned income of £15,000 and also households who have an earned income of £20,000 and so on as described in your table above ?

Yes or No ?

If Swinney believes what he says about "anti-austerity", yes.

If Swinney believes that tax is able to redistribute wealth to those who need it, yes.

If Swinney beleives that tax is able to redistribute wealth at all, yes.

I certainly believe the purpose of tax is to put the moeny where it's needed - and that very deliberately Swinney avoided doing so.

And proves the anti-austerity stuff as empty guff, and you as the mug who swallowed it (and still swallow it, going by your question here).

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Your figures also show a 1% increase on the higher earners. In your opinion, is that what Mr Swinney should have done with the big earners ?

The high earners paying a higher proportion of the money is considered 'progressive', so he definitely should have increased the rate for the higher earners and everyone else if he believes in progressive taxation and the power of govts to redistribute as needed, as well as 'anti-austerity'. A rise for everyone would have been that exact thing happening.

The actual percentage rise applied becomes an irrelevance because of Swinney's inaction. If he's not happy to increase their tax burden by a little amount to benefit the poorest then he's certainly not happy to increase it by a bigger amount to bigger benefit the poorest.

We both know what's being proven here - that Scots are not happy to pay extra for extra public services to benefit the poorest.

[Comfy Bean]

On 12/18/2015 at 7:00 AM, Stash said:

I hope you understand that Swinney is being a little disingenuous with this statement. A flat rate tax increase would not disproportionately affect lower rate tax payers, in fact a flat rate impacts more on higher rate tax payers due to the thresholds on when income tax is payable. The truly poorest are likely not to be taxpayers at all. Swinney of course knows this, or at least I hope he does!

Swinney of course announced at the same time that in conjunction with the local authorities, the freeze on council tax would continue. 

If he wanted to decrease "tory austerity" he could have raised the SRIT as well as the council tax rates and targeted the extra income in areas where it would most help. Instead he either is offering a pre-election bribe, isn't brave enough to risk the current SNP vote or actually realises that despite the rhetoric, Scottish voters are not any more willing to see their taxes increase than anyone else in the country. Either way, the quote above doesn't tell anywhere near the true story and if it was made by anyone other than the SNP, you'd be all over it like a rash. 

You mention Swinney being disingenuous here but I`m not sure he was ( with that quote were discussing ). We are talking about tax year 16/17 and why Westminster had prevented a Labour or SNP Scottish Gvt from raising tax in the highest band unless they matched it in the lower bands. I had raised this specific point as I had just received my new letter about it. Neil said something about me not understanding the new powers and tried to move us on to new, future powers that we may or may not get. As we are discussing Scotlands independence here, I also pointed out that if the SNP didn`t raise the higher band - they said they would to 50p - then at last, Labour up here might have something to run with. 

I gave my own view that perhaps Dave and co didn`t want to " allow " Scottish Govt to go down this road in case, god forbid, it worked at starting to close the gap between rich and poor and I asked if anyone had a different view on why Scotland would not be allowed to target one band of earners.

The same rule prevents them from decreasing tax for the lower earners ie they would have to cut tax for the rich. So again....what`s the point of this from a Westminster point of view ?

It is this " restriction " for want of a better word that both myself and Swinney were commenting on.

I`m not sure that Swinney announced the freeze on Council Tax  in " conjunction " with Local Authorities . I don`t think that is accurate.

I think that the Council Tax does need changed up here but the commission thingy to propose a " fairer " replacement only came out with it`s recommendations last week so we will have to wait and see on that. I hope the SNP will do something about it though. 

[eFestivals]

PS... whatever Swinney's real reasons for the choice he made over not-increasing tax rates via SRIT, those reasons are nothing to do with him lying about the effect a rise would have.

There is no excuse for the big lie.

Apart from for the political advantages the SNP get by having suckers like you swallow his lie.

 

Edited December 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

PS... whatever Swinney's real reasons for the choice he made over increasing tax rates via SRIT, those reasons are nothing to do with him lying about the effect a rise would have.

There is no excuse for the big lie.

Apart from for the political advantages the SNP get by having you swallow his lie.

 

I do not think it`s fair to increase income tax on someone earning £15K. I would be against a Labour or SNP Govt introducing the increase you suggest.

I do not think it`s fair to increase the tax on someone earning £215K by only the same 1% as you suggest.

I remember before on here when we were suggesting increasing tax on the higher earners you described it as " robbing the rich " 

I`ve made my point and do not think it was right that the Scottish Govt would have been " forced " to drag any increase on the wealthy during tax year 2016/17 down through the bands therefore capturing the lower earners.

No-one has been able to offer an alternative opinion on why Westminster restricted these " powers " and I`m happy to leave it at that. 

[Comfy Bean]

On 12/14/2015 at 9:21 AM, Stash said:

The two sentences in bold highlight the fallacy of your argument for secession. You feel sure that it'd be OK in the long run, but you have no ideas how to make it work, nor are you willing to debate anything important. If you want to put an artificial time-scale on when you'll talk about financial questions, why bother still evangelising the rest of the secession agenda until then? Or is the avoidance of talking about finances more to do with not having any answers to that particular question?

 

On 12/14/2015 at 9:40 AM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Ok, I take your point but speculating is really all any of us can do as Scotland voted to stick with Dave. Of course we are talking about an " artificial time-scale ". We will be for a good while yet I reckon ?

On the first sentence I would probably stick with my general point. I`m guessing at 15 years but you could just as easily say 10, 15, 20, 30............ How anyone can do anything more than " guess " at the finances in an independent Scotland at an undetermined time is beyond me.

I`ll amend my second sentence to - I believe that Scotland could manage to be an independent country taking it`s own decisions away from the current Westminster set up. 

I am willing to debate the possibilities so not sure why you want to claim that I`m not ?

Why don`t you set out a few specifics on why you believe that Scotland could NOT manage to be an independent Country and we can take it from there 

Stash can we pick up on the " fallacy " of my argument ?

 I know you don`t like my " evangelising " on the prospect of a successful indy Scotland so why not give us some specifics on why you think it can`t happen ?

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I gave my own view that perhaps Dave and co didn`t want to " allow " Scottish Govt to go down this road in case, god forbid, it worked at starting to close the gap between rich and poor and I asked if anyone had a different view on why Scotland would not be allowed to target one band of earners.

Some people love a good conspiracy theory, others just look at the facts.

An integrated economy with big differences in taxes is an economy chasing itself to the bottom.

Which is one of the reasons why Swinney decided to copy tory party policy and add a tax on 2nd homes. If a lower tax on 2nd homes existed in Scotland* it would cause the current proportional sales of 2nd homes to change in Scotland's favour and to the detriment of tax raised in England, which would cause England to respond by another 'attractive' (downwards) tax change, in a race to the bottom.

(* don't forget that there would be a reason why it differed, too [such as 'to attract more richer types to spend money in Scotland']- and that reason would sustain itself while the race to the bottom continued)

A race to the bottom is the very last thing Scotland wants if it really believes in a higher rate of public services. A race to the bottom shifts the proportional tax burden from the richest to the poorest too.

 

11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The same rule prevents them from decreasing tax for the lower earners ie they would have to cut tax for the rich. So again....what`s the point of this from a Westminster point of view ?

It is this " restriction " for want of a better word that both myself and Swinney were commenting on.

I`m not sure that Swinney announced the freeze on Council Tax  in " conjunction " with Local Authorities . I don`t think that is accurate.

I'm actually pretty comfortable with Swinney not using SRIT, because a race to the bottom is the last thing I want to see and I'ver not fallen for the guff that Scots are happy to pay more for better public services.

It's Swinney's lie as his justification that i'm getting at. He stated something almost the direct opposite of the truth.

21 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think that the Council Tax does need changed up here but the commission thingy to propose a " fairer " replacement only came out with it`s recommendations last week so we will have to wait and see on that. I hope the SNP will do something about it though. 

That'll be a change, maybe, after more than a decade of SNP-imposed (with the help of their friends the tories) austerity on Scottish councils, which has reduced services and penalised those most in need.

But still nothing has happened. Until it has, there's nothing to be said here.

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I do not think it`s fair to increase income tax on someone earning £15K.

As a justification for not increasing taxes via SRIT, that's absolutely fine.

If Swinney had given that as his justification, that would be fine too.

(tho it is an over-simplification, even then - because not everyone on £15k is the same 'poor')

But Swinney didn't. Swinney gave a different reasoning, and then used a lie to justify it.

 

Quote

I do not think it`s fair to increase the tax on someone earning £215K by only the same 1% as you suggest.

I certainly agree that the measures available to Swinney are not the ideal way to be able to alter income taxes.

But it's not the 'same 1%'. That's the lie that Swinney wishes you to believe. No one pays an extra 1%.

Anyone earning less than £10k pays nothing at all, and someone earning an infinitely large amount will always pay a smidgen less than the full 1%.

No one pays 1%, and the poorest get a much lower *actual* rise.

someone earning £10k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.0% (an extra nothing at all)
someone earning £15k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.33% (an extra £50 pa)
someone earning £20k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.5% (an extra £100 pa)
someone earning £25k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.58% (an extra £150 pa)
someone earning £30k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.66% (an extra £200 pa)
someone earning £40k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.75% (an extra £300 pa)
someone earning £50k sees their payable tax increase by: 0.80% (an extra £400 pa)

 

Quote

I remember before on here when we were suggesting increasing tax on the higher earners you described it as " robbing the rich " 

Why don't you want taxes increased for the poorest, comfy? Is that because you don't want to see them robbed?

Why do you think the rich think differently? They think they'd be getting robbed, no differently.

Edited December 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

No-one has been able to offer an alternative opinion on why Westminster restricted these " powers " and I`m happy to leave it at that. 

because an integrated economy with varying-too-much tax rates driven only by self-interest rather than everyone's-interest is a fuck-up.

If you wish to take that logic to the nth-degree, then the SG ceases to have any worthwhile purpose and all power might as well be devolved to councils - but that doesn't happen, because what's good for a local council might not be good for wider Scotland.

And similarly, what's good for Scotland isn't necessarily good for all of the UK.

And that's why no country in the world has devolved all powers.

Your conclusion of "nasty evil Westminster Bullingdon English tories" is what it is - the easy answer of the prejudiced.

 

Edited December 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

On 12/16/2015 at 6:40 PM, LJS said:

No one on here has ever suggested the SNP would use the Calman powers forvtge simple reason that they are untargetted increasing tax on the lowest rate taxpayer by exactly the same %.as the highest rate . That's not my idea of "progressive"

 

 

 

On 12/16/2015 at 6:44 PM, eFestivals said:

I agree, it's not progressive.

 

I see now you've caught up with your Chokka pal, Neil, you have changed your tune about the progressiveness of an across the board tax increase

 

If I may quote him...

 

Quote

Now: you can argue that the incremental pound matters more to a lower earner and that existing SRIT powers don't allow us to avoid impacting all tax payers. They are valid points.

 

[eFestivals]

18 hours ago, LJS said:

I see now you've caught up with your Chokka pal, Neil, you have changed your tune about the progressiveness of an across the board tax increase

If I may quote him...

nothing about SRIT falls within the standard use of 'progressive', and yet a deeper look gets to show that it fulfils that progressive brief all the same.

Your own take fails at that standard use of 'progressive' too, because your version of 'progressive' is the same as any tory's - that more tax is for someone else to pay, not you.

You're being more selective than me with the facts you'll accept. At least I'm willing to be swayed by facts rather than being wedded to a selective and self-serving use of rhetoric, as well as being willing to pay more tax myself (and I earn a hell of a lot less than £15k, too!!!).

The self-declared progressives are too progressive to more pay tax themselves because "it'll hurt the poor" yet at least one of the poor is going to call you out on that greed. There's fuck all that's progressive about putting yourself first when progressive taxation is about redistribution to where it's needed and so therefore cannot hurt the poorest.

Meanwhile.... Swinney gave a reasoning that wasn't any different interpretation of the facts, but a simple lie about the facts. Did he lie because he's stupid, or because he thinks his supporters are stupid?

PS: mention chokka all you like - because all you'll be doing is pointing at the facts for why all of what you say is laughable.

Edited December 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Your own take fails at that standard use of 'progressive' too, because your version of 'progressive' is the same as any tory's - that more tax is for someone else to pay, not you.

You're being more selective than me with the facts you'll accept. At least I'm willing to be swayed by facts rather than being wedded to a selective and self-serving use of rhetoric, as well as being willing to pay more tax myself (and I earn a hell of a lot less than £15k, too!!!).

 

On 12/16/2015 at 7:15 PM, LJS said:

When was the last time a UK Government raised the basic rate of income tax? It will be close to 40 years ago, I'd imagine, if not more. Why? because it has become politically taboo thanks to the blessed Margaret & her head disciple St Tony. The SNP are so popular just now they might just get away with it although it would be exceedingly brave when they are only months away from an election. Personally, I would support it as long as they were using the additional money raised was used constructively. Although I think the SNP are fairly progressive under Nicola, I am not sure they are particularly brave.

You must feel better after that:)

I do not know how many times I have said I would personally be happy to pay more tax. Unfortunately I only pay basic rate tax so any tax increase on me would also be a tax increase on the lowest paid. The easy was around that would be to increase the basic rate & increase the tax allowance ...  but we're not allowed to do that.

[LJS]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

nothing about SRIT falls within the standard use of 'progressive', and yet a deeper look gets to show that it fulfils that progressive brief all the same.

Your own take fails at that standard use of 'progressive' too, because your version of 'progressive' is the same as any tory's - that more tax is for someone else to pay, not you.

You're being more selective than me with the facts you'll accept. At least I'm willing to be swayed by facts rather than being wedded to a selective and self-serving use of rhetoric, as well as being willing to pay more tax myself (and I earn a hell of a lot less than £15k, too!!!).

The self-declared progressives are too progressive to more pay tax themselves because "it'll hurt the poor" yet at least one of the poor is going to call you out on that greed. There's fuck all that's progressive about putting yourself first when progressive taxation is about redistribution to where it's needed and so therefore cannot hurt the poorest.

Meanwhile.... Swinney gave a reasoning that wasn't any different interpretation of the facts, but a simple lie about the facts. Did he lie because he's stupid, or because he thinks his supporters are stupid?

PS: mention chokka all you like - because all you'll be doing is pointing at the facts for why all of what you say is laughable.

On a more general point, you seem to have taken the view that because on a narrow % measure richer people suffer more form a flat rate increase in tax. You are not stupid enough (?!) to believe that it is anything like as simple as that which is maybe why you chose to ignore my closing quote from your new hero.. 

 

On 12/20/2015 at 1:23 PM, LJS said:

Now: you can argue that the incremental pound matters more to a lower earner and that existing SRIT powers don't allow us to avoid impacting all tax payers. They are valid points.

choosing instead to accuse me of hypocrisy and attack John Swinney ( who thus became one fo the world's dullest ever squirrels)

 

So here's another chance. To save me the bother here's a BTL quote from CockaBlog ...

Quote

This analysis overlooks the basic costs of living and the amount of disposable income that each income band has after paying for food, heating, transport, etc. Your argument that a 1% increase in SRIT has a smaller % impact on the take home income of a low earner is obviously correct in stark numerical terms, but reality is different when you look at the impact of £94 on the disposable income of someone on £20K relative to the impact of £294 on the disposable income of someone earning £40k. 

 Care to address the point this time?

[Comfy Bean]

Your point is a good one and I fully agree with it but we've been dancing around it for about a week now and Neil has circled his wagon. I predict more " robbing the rich banter in the morning ".

An income tax increase on folk with a household earned income of 15 grand was the example he gave in his table thingy and the same 1% increase on the high earners. I think NS has a different plan.....Fortunately! 

Did you see the latest polls?  On phone so can't link.

Massive support continues across the country with the younger folks in particular really solid. Especially when you consider 8 years now in govt. 

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Your point is a good one and I fully agree with it but we've been dancing around it for about a week now and Neil has circled his wagon. I predict more " robbing the rich banter in the morning ".

An income tax increase on folk with a household earned income of 15 grand was the example he gave in his table thingy and the same 1% increase on the high earners. I think NS has a different plan.....Fortunately! 

Did you see the latest polls?  On phone so can't link.

Massive support continues across the country with the younger folks in particular really solid. Especially when you consider 8 years now in govt. 

Yes, saw the polls  - & I'm not on the phone so i can link. 

 

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/press-release/snp-shrugs-opposition-attacks-increase-holyrood-poll-lead

Quote

 

The Scottish National Party has increased its lead over Labour in the last month, with its standing apparently unaffected by reported problems in the health service and the disruption caused by the closure of the Forth Road Bridge, according to a new survey by TNS.

The survey of 1035 over-16s in Scotland also found the economy has become a more important consideration in voting decisions since the summer, and that more people in Scotland oppose the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system than support it.

 

The seemingly untouchable SNP continue to survive every slur & allegation thrown at them.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

I do not know how many times I have said I would personally be happy to pay more tax. Unfortunately I only pay basic rate tax so any tax increase on me would also be a tax increase on the lowest paid. The easy was around that would be to increase the basic rate & increase the tax allowance ...  but we're not allowed to do that.

You vote for a govt's programme. You don't get to specific the exact place your own tax payments go to.

And funnily enough, you voted for a party who said they were anti-austerity, which means increasing the taxes of everyone to benefit the poorest via tax redistribution ... but suddenly Scotland doesn't want anti-austerity, they instead want to match tory austerity.

And further, the now-not-wanting-anti-austerity party has used a blatant lie by Swinney to make it stand up.

Those are the facts as they've happened.

They're a bit inconvenient for the narrative tho, aren't they?

Which is why another narrative is now being invented, as snippers everywhere swivel on their own fingers.

Edited December 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

On a more general point, you seem to have taken the view that because on a narrow % measure richer people suffer more form a flat rate increase in tax. You are not stupid enough (?!) to believe that it is anything like as simple as that which is maybe why you chose to ignore my closing quote from your new hero.. 

I'm well aware that it's not that simple.

One of the major issues would be the unwanted consequences caused by different tax rates each side of the border - a consequence which only now is being said by snippers, and only after years of snippers saying things like that don't matter and calling "unionists" (actually, just people who reference facts) liars for pointing it out.

And, as I've made clear, I'm pretty comfortable with Swinney not having changed the rate.

Meanwhile Swinney lied to you as his justification for doing nothing. A big fat turd of a lie ... and the snippers like you have sucked it up.

And the SNP have abandoned anti-austerity, too, to copy the tories instead.... But let's just forget those parts, yeah?

 

Quote

choosing instead to accuse me of hypocrisy and attack John Swinney ( who thus became one fo the world's dullest ever squirrels)

I've pointed out that your finance minister has lied to the Scottish population - either because he's too stupid to understand the tax regime he's responsible for, or because he thinks his supporters are too stupid to understand they've been lied to.

Take your pick.

Or at least face up to what Swinney has done and invent another myth for why he's lied to you.... but no, you shoot the m3essenger instead, and while you hand the SNP yet another free pass.

I happened to see a table and a claim this morning about Scotland's political voting history and what it means going forwards. While I suspect the claims may turn out to be true, it means something very different to what was claimed ... because Scotland causes itself to have piss-taking politicians because it doesn't hold its current favourites to account.

 

Quote

So here's another chance. To save me the bother here's a BTL quote from CockaBlog ...

 Care to address the point this time?

Taxes get redistributed.

If you're saying that Scottish politicians cannot redistribute tax revenues to help the poorest, that's the myth that Scotland wants to pay more in taxes to help the poor gone up in smoke.

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by eFestivals