The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

I have stated in the last 24 hours and also many times in the past that Scotland is more expensive to run. I mentioned the geography, more rural etc so clearly I did not reference tax receipts without also acknowledging the greater spend  

I also mentioned specifically that tax receipts per head over the last 34 years ( not selectively leaving years out ) were higher.

Specifically on the tax receipts, am I wrong ? were they lower per head in Scotland ? If so I`d appreciate a link to the correct tax receipts per head across the UK regions for the same period. Of course, I will then apologies if I`m mistaken.

Graphs and chat about other websites is all smoke and mirrors when we are talking specifically about tax receipts per head and over a specific period.

I think we all accept that Scotland is more expensive to run due to land mass, population etc.

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have stated in the last 24 hours and also many times in the past that Scotland is more expensive to run. I mentioned the geography, more rural etc so clearly I did not reference tax receipts without also acknowledging the greater spend  

In which case you know saying "it generates more tax revenue per head" is meaningless within the whole debate (unless to point out that Scotland is NOT shat on by Westminster).

So why say it?

It can only be to try and create/sustain a myth.

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

I see the latest tactic from you Unionist fellas is to claim that me and LJS are motivated by a sense of feeling hard done by and it`s all grievance politics.

Oh dear 

If only people would read the posts before inventing conclusions.

I do not feel hard done by. Hopefully this is clear enough.

[Comfy Bean]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In which case you know saying "it generates more tax revenue per head" is meaningless within the whole debate (unless to point out that Scotland is NOT shat on by Westminster).

So why say it?

It can only be to try and create/sustain a myth.

Is it true though. Serious question. I`m not going to bother quoting Stash`s responses over the last 24 hours but will assume you have read them. To be clear, I take your point that they cannot be taken in isolation....hence the reason I referenced the costs and have always accepted this.

I know you like facts so true or false on the 34 years ?

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I see the latest tactic from you Unionist fellas is to claim that me and LJS are motivated by a sense of feeling hard done by and it`s all grievance politics.

Oh dear 

If only people would read the posts before inventing conclusions.

I do not feel hard done by. Hopefully this is clear enough.

But you do think Scotland's poorest are getting a rough deal. You've posted that within the last week or so.

And of course you're welcome to think that and want something better  ... the first part of your thinking is fine ....... but it's not going to be cured by taking away TEN BILLION POUNDS of money that might be spent on the poorest, is it?

So why exactly is indy soooo veeeery important to you comfy, when it CANNOT deliver what you say you want from it?

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Is it true though. Serious question. I`m not going to bother quoting Stash`s responses over the last 24 hours but will assume you have read them. To be clear, I take your point that they cannot be taken in isolation....hence the reason I referenced the costs and have always accepted this.

I know you like facts so true or false on the 34 years ?

Hmmm... you need to phrase the question more precisely before I answer, because I know exactly how this one goes if you don't.

(if can handle the question precisely phrased in whatever way you wish to phrase it, btw, and the trick that normally gets pulled around it is easy to handle ... but I can't be bothered to go thru two distinctly different and long-to-explain-properly arguments for the lack of clarity in your question)

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

In which case you know saying "it generates more tax revenue per head" is meaningless within the whole debate (unless to point out that Scotland is NOT shat on by Westminster).

So why say it?

It can only be to try and create/sustain a myth.

...or to force you into making a twat of yourself by trying to refute it with totally irrelevant data. 

[LJS]

8 hours ago, Stash said:

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

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

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

 

 

Just for the record I have not "conceeded" (or even conceded) that " this 34 year outstripping UK taxes is an absolute joke of a figure and deserves nothing but derision"

In order to attempt to discredit it you have quoted figures for income tax only which accounts for about 30% of the total tax take.

You will find figures for total tax take here  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf on page 8.

It doesn't go back 34 years but you will find that Comfy is correct.

How relevant it is is of course arguable, but it was certainly relevant enough for you to attempt to discredit it.

I would suggest you & Neil both pay attention before you compare apples & oranges.

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

Oops - duplicate post

Edited February 3, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

I would suggest you & Neil both pay attention before you compare apples & oranges.

how dreadful of us to concentrate on the part which matters, rather than trying to have an argument over something that's irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for the online source.for the not-nutty side of the indy debate. Got a link please?

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

how dreadful of us to concentrate on the part which matters, rather than trying to have an argument over something that's irrelevant.

It was you & stash that were arguing - if its so irrelevant i'm not sure why you bothered!!!

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm still waiting for the online source.for the not-nutty side of the indy debate. Got a link please?

There is tons of good stuff on Bella Caledonia, Common Space, Newsnet Scotland, Derek Bateman & Lallands Peat Worrier (who I linked yesterday regarding Labour's income tax plans) all have some good stuff. We don't currently have our own Chokka (how sad!) The Cuthberts are the closest that I am aware of (http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/) but their stuff is a bit dry & technical and they certainly can't do Graphs like Chucky.

 

https://www.commonspace.scot/

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/

http://newsnet.scot/

http://derekbateman.co.uk/

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

Please note that this is not an endorsement by me of every word in every article in each of these sites. There is much there that I disagree with.

 

Please also note that I am on record on more than one occasion as saying that there is no point i holding  a second referendum unless the Yes² campaign comes bundled with a well thought through & credible economic plan. 

 

You (presumably through your contacts in the SNP inner sanctum) claim the SNP have no plan. I happen to believe Sturgeon is no fool but there is no need for a detailed plan when there is no proposal for a second referendum. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland gets a population-based share of UK spending.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Tiresomely and inevitably, you have taken your normal "SNP BAAAD" stance on this.

You appear to have privileged access to the details of the negotiations.

The BBC are a bit more even handed & at no stage is there a suggestion that there is nothing to negotiate.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35470086

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35458650

It's politics Neil, you are supposed to understand that.

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

It was you & stash that were arguing - if its so irrelevant i'm not sure why you bothered!!!

There is tons of good stuff on Bella Caledonia, Common Space, Newsnet Scotland, Derek Bateman & Lallands Peat Worrier (who I linked yesterday regarding Labour's income tax plans) all have some good stuff. We don't currently have our own Chokka (how sad!) The Cuthberts are the closest that I am aware of (http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/) but their stuff is a bit dry & technical and they certainly can't do Graphs like Chucky.

 

https://www.commonspace.scot/

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/

http://newsnet.scot/

http://derekbateman.co.uk/

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

Please note that this is not an endorsement by me of every word in every article in each of these sites. There is much there that I disagree with.

Thanks. I'll take a look thru when I've time.

Bella is OK, but is getting marginalised I hear (guess by who? ). And newsnet, hmmmm.

The Cuthberks I knew of, chokka points out them contradicting themselves. They've a fav quote of the more-rabid too, which is hardly endearing.

Have any of them given up denying that iScotland would be fiscally fucked. and has a vague-ish plan on how Scotland will manage with £10bn less and how Scottish society would look very different to now?

Or do they all still have their heads up their arses?

 

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

Please also note that I am on record on more than one occasion as saying that there is no point i holding  a second referendum unless the Yes² campaign comes bundled with a well thought through & credible economic plan. 

To your credit, you are.

But then you went and spoilt it by saying you hoped that something would jump out the air to plug that fiscal black hole, and showed you won't keep your head out of the clouds for a whole sentence.

 

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

You (presumably through your contacts in the SNP inner sanctum) claim the SNP have no plan. I happen to believe Sturgeon is no fool but there is no need for a detailed plan when there is no proposal for a second referendum. 

But according to Sturgeon, a 2nd ref could be triggered at any moment.

And surely any half decent politician should be preparing for the unexpected. When that 2nd ref is so very expected, surely it would be right to have a plan and keep updating it?

And given that the SNP are so 'of the people', the people should be a part of that conversation, with the draft being on public view.

Perhaps they could even charge for people like you to come and look it over, and for people like me to come and laugh? It might even fill that fiscal black hole.

No? Ok then,

 

[LJS]

 

Quote

 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

    

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

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

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

 

 

 

You having memory issues? You are well aware that the SNP were unable to implement their 2007 promise for local taxation as they were a minority government & could not get support for it. They are now getting round to doing something about it...a delay which I have already criticised them for but at least they are doing something unlike any other UK administration.

 

As for the failed promises nonsense,you tried that before - I dismantled it for you - I certainly have no interest in spending time doing the same again.

 

For someone who claims to love his facts, you really are letting yourself down badly today.

 

You really really need to get help with your irrational SNP hatred  - even admitting you would rather let the Tories in than vote SNP. 

 

Sad. 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

You having memory issues? You are well aware that the SNP were unable to implement their 2007 promise for local taxation as they were a minority government & could not get support for it. They are now getting round to doing something about it...a delay which I have already criticised them for but at least they are doing something unlike any other UK administration.

after 5 years of majority govt, and having done nothing at all on the biggest and oldest winning pledge.

Here's betting there's be nothing more than a "we'll do something about it, honest" pledge in the latest version. It certainly won't detail how.

 

Quote

As for the failed promises nonsense,you tried that before - I dismantled it for you - I certainly have no interest in spending time doing the same again.

Yeah, doing so very well that only in the last few months has Scotland been able to crow about its better NHS (and gawd, how it's crowed), while brushing over that the disastrous years had a certain little lady in charge.

Govt's get some things right, and other things wrong, and not necessarily the things you thought they'd get right or wrong before they started. They've not been dreadful, but neither do they deserve the slavish unthinking support they get.

It's dead funny to hear their supporters advocating austerity recently tho, because it would be so very wrong to raise taxes. It shows just how fleeting the well-meaning is.

 

Quote

You really really need to get help with your irrational SNP hatred  - even admitting you would rather let the Tories in than vote SNP. 

 

Sad. 

what's sad is you resorting to lies. Again.

It's cos you're so short of the facts on your side.

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's because of changes in the tax threshold.

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

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

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

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

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

That's a bit disingenuous Neil.

 

yes the tax threshold changes in April from £10600 to £11000 meaning all taxpayers will be £80 a year better off. Nothing in any of the Parties' Scottish proposals alters this ( because they can't)

So although on a technical point you are correct that the libdem's proposals will not make the lowest paid worse off than they are now, they will quite clearly & demonstrably make then worse off then they would otherwise be ( & worse off than peopole earning the same in other parts of the UK)

 

Frankly , at the moment we have 3 pretty unattractive proposals 

 

1: the Libdems penalise the poor

2: Labour try & sort that come up with a "dog's dinner"

3: the SNP sit on their hands.

 

I ahve given my views already on the SNP & tax   here's a couple of quotes from me from December..

Quote

 

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"

 

Things will get a bit better next year although the Scottish Government will still have no power to change tax thresholds, which could be another tool to tweak the balance between lower earning & higher earning taxpayers.

 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

So, I think the SNP could have done something & headed off the Libdems & Labour at the pass. 

 

Incidentally, whilst I am in "mildly critical of the SNP" mode, I think much of the reaction to the Labour proposals has been of the Kneejerk variety & very few pro Indy voices have given any sort of measured response.

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

I'm still waiting for the online source.for the not-nutty side of the indy debate. Got a link please?

Your on it  

[Comfy Bean]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Hmmm... you need to phrase the question more precisely before I answer, because I know exactly how this one goes if you don't.

(if can handle the question precisely phrased in whatever way you wish to phrase it, btw, and the trick that normally gets pulled around it is easy to handle ... but I can't be bothered to go thru two distinctly different and long-to-explain-properly arguments for the lack of clarity in your question)

 

No I don`t. You answered it earlier today with " Complete and utter bullshit " followed by one of those we eye roll thingys. It`s just a page back if you want to check. Strangely that is not what you said previously on the 34 year claim but you and Stash have had your say and I`ve had mine.

I was really just wanting to come back in after you accusing me of lying and presenting some stats, which you claim as complete and utter bullshit, without also stating that Scotland costs more to run. I had mentioned that fact as you now know.... but will soon forget.

I will not expect an apology 

 

[Comfy Bean]

22 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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

 

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

i do, yep.

You should have just made this post 375 pages ago. I suppose this is it in a nutshell.

Only today ( and for years now ) we have been discussing the different, rural communities we have here in Scotland. The fact that they are more expensive / complicated to run. How services have to be delivered differently in these remote communities and the local difficulties attracting necessary skills etc.

This is before we start on the politics of our Country who we know returned 1 ( one ) Tory MP.

You think that the best place to make decisions for Scotland is......London and that these decisions should be taken by a Tory Government.

I strongly disagree. Your words are quite revealing though and as I said before, you should have just said this from the start.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But you do think Scotland's poorest are getting a rough deal. You've posted that within the last week or so.

And of course you're welcome to think that and want something better  ... the first part of your thinking is fine ....... but it's not going to be cured by taking away TEN BILLION POUNDS of money that might be spent on the poorest, is it?

 

I have posted that Scotland`s poorest are getting a raw deal for longer than the last week or so but leaving that aside.....

I assume the 10 billion is a figure you believe to be correct IF we ever become independent at some unknown point down the line and for sure many years away. I disagree as you know but lets just go with it for now.

Scotland voted to stay and I posted an article from the Herald yesterday ( the Sunday version is the pro indy one ) that stated that Scotland would lose £3.5 billion if we accept the current deal from the Tories. The £3.5 billion would actually happen and to be clear that is over 10 years ( while we are better together ).

So to use your words....is this not " taking away " £3.5Bn from the poorest in Scotland ?

Can you not see a problem with the position you are taking on one but not both of these issues ?

It would be interesting to know how the total cut from our block grant is coming along after the years of Tory Govt and with a good few more to come. Hopefully this will not end up being another £3.5 billion added to it.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You should have just made this post 375 pages ago. I suppose this is it in a nutshell.

I've said it before - and it's my choice to choose that no more or less than it's yours to choose indy.

There's certainly benefits to centralisation. The party you support seem to love it quite a lot.

Amusingly, there's already stuff to be seen about how the westmonster the central belt fucks over the perifery - exactly the same issue that got you there in the first place. Devolution carried to its logical conclusion sees the end of Scotland just as you wish to see the end of the UK.

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Only today ( and for years now ) we have been discussing the different, rural communities we have here in Scotland. The fact that they are more expensive / complicated to run. How services have to be delivered differently in these remote communities and the local difficulties attracting necessary skills etc.

This is before we start on the politics of our Country who we know returned 1 ( one ) Tory MP.

You think that the best place to make decisions for Scotland is......London and that these decisions should be taken by a Tory Government.

I strongly disagree. Your words are quite revealing though and as I said before, you should have just said this from the start.

I think that the view from Glasgow or Edinburgh of the highlands is just as remote as the view of Glasgow or Edinburgh might be from London, and plenty of Scots seem to agree from the things I've read.

The right policy is the right policy. It doesn't matter a fuck where the person is sat to make that policy.

If it matters, it gets to mean that somehow by being sat in Scotland you become cleverer. Do you want to let me into the scientific basis for that?

Given that you think the right policy is to impoverish your country by TEN BILLION POUNDS while saying that you refuse to pay more in taxes to help the poorest and that paying more taxes is for someone else to do (tories say that too ), I'd say the choices made in Scotland aren't always the best.

Which reminds me, I asked you a question, and rather ... erm ... 'oddly' ... you seem to have addressed my other words i the same post, but have run away scared from a nice easy question about why you support indy.

 

16 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So why exactly is indy soooo veeeery important to you comfy, when it CANNOT deliver what you say you want from it?

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have posted that Scotland`s poorest are getting a raw deal for longer than the last week or so but leaving that aside.....

I assume the 10 billion is a figure you believe to be correct IF we ever become independent at some unknown point down the line and for sure many years away. I disagree as you know but lets just go with it for now.

Scotland voted to stay and I posted an article from the Herald yesterday ( the Sunday version is the pro indy one ) that stated that Scotland would lose £3.5 billion if we accept the current deal from the Tories. The £3.5 billion would actually happen and to be clear that is over 10 years ( while we are better together ).

So to use your words....is this not " taking away " £3.5Bn from the poorest in Scotland ?

Can you not see a problem with the position you are taking on one but not both of these issues ?

It would be interesting to know how the total cut from our block grant is coming along after the years of Tory Govt and with a good few more to come. Hopefully this will not end up being another £3.5 billion added to it.

Comfy...

If everything was remaining equal with UK spending, the deal the tories are offering for the new funding plan would mean identical funding per-head in Scotland, while Scotland's percentage of UK funding would still fall - by the consequence of Scotland's falling population as a proportion of UK population.

Swinney would still be asking for the better deal for Scpotland - at the expense of others in the UK.

Meanwhile, if the latest Scotland Act is never implemented and everything of Scotltish funding stays identical to how it's been for the last 40 years (Barnet formula), you'll lose that £3.5Bn anyway. Losing that £3.5Bn is a consequence of dealing with the UK's deficit, and the same effect is mirrored on all parts of the UK.

Whether it's right or not to make those cuts is another thing (tho balancing the books matters), but it is what it is - fuck all to do with changing Scotland's powers and the financial adjustments that need to be made alongside that.

Meanwhile, if Scotland self-funded, the cuts would be far far FAR greater. 'The union' is looking after Scotland on a 100% fair and equal basis.

It's people like you who wish to take an enormous dump of shit onto your fellow countrymen, rather than the tories - particularly when snippers say they're not happy to pay more taxes to make up for the huge cuts they'd cause.

 

[Comfy Bean]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I've said it before - and it's my choice to choose that no more or less than it's yours to choose indy.

There's certainly benefits to centralisation. The party you support seem to love it quite a lot.

I think that the view from Glasgow or Edinburgh of the highlands is just as remote as the view of Glasgow or Edinburgh might be from London, and plenty of Scots seem to agree from the things I've read.

The right policy is the right policy. It doesn't matter a fuck where the person is sat to make that policy.

 

You don`t need to roll your eyes, of course it`s your right to choose to support the closure of Hollyrood. I resepct that. I honestly didn`t know that`s how you felt. 

I`ve said this before once or twice about our political union.....

The Tories have nothing to win or lose vote wise up here. 1 seat at the moment what difference would none or another 1 make. We know it`s down to the Maths and with England having waaaay more seats it`s not difficult to see how their political decision making around investment etc would be motivated by votes.

I don`t agree with a Tory Govt being influenced by power but I certainly understand it.....and the maths.

I completely disagree that a Tory based in London is better placed to make decisions on Scotland than a Labour or SNP Govt running our show from Edinburgh. You are entitled to think otherwise. 

On the right policy comment I was going to mention the Poll tax as I assume that`s the type of thing you mean 

 

[Comfy Bean]

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Given that you think the right policy is to impoverish your country by TEN BILLION POUNDS while saying that you refuse to pay more in taxes to help the poorest and that paying more taxes is for someone else to do (tories say that too ), I'd say the choices made in Scotland aren't always the best.

* Sighs * 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I completely disagree that a Tory based in London is better placed to make decisions on Scotland than a Labour or SNP Govt running our show from Edinburgh. You are entitled to think otherwise. 
 

Even that you couldn't help but twist into something I never said.

That's how weak your own arguments are. It's almost like you know you're talking bollocks.

After all, it would take a special kind of stupid for someone posting that sort of stuff and not know they were talking bollocks.