The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

No idea how much if any of this is true!

 

http://m.heraldscotland.com/politics/14371134.The_inside_story_of_how_Osborne_moved_to_destroy_the_Scotland_Bill/?ref=twtrec

[LJS]

Another bit of information, I don't know if you've seen this,Neil

 

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00497047.pdf

At a quick glance I can't see anything particularly remarkable. I seem to remember a broader range of subjects covered in previosu years - maybe it comes out in instalments - or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Bizarrely the Express manages to conjure this up out of it which i'm sure even Neil will agree is stretching things a wee bit.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/654010/Scotland-survey-voters-remain-UK

Fortunately no one reads the Express.

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, LJS said:

irrelevant. What you said was  "You say Scotland can grow its economy faster than China."

I don't & never have. I have said Scotland can grow its economy. I have presented some evidence that smaller countries are more successful in growing their economies. Other than that I haven't said much that resembles your claims.

You very definitely have said that Scotland can grow it's economy. You've repeatedly said that it would and avoid cuts by doing so. You and Sturgeon.

*YOU* have presented NO evidence that smaller countries are more successful at growing economies, tho you have mentioned it. And I've given you more detail about that, to point out that if that "small countries grow faster" thing holds up to the level Salmond claimed the time it will take to make up the difference is 120 years.

 

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, LJS said:

No idea how much if any of this is true!

 

http://m.heraldscotland.com/politics/14371134.The_inside_story_of_how_Osborne_moved_to_destroy_the_Scotland_Bill/?ref=twtrec

Chancellor refuses to pay out at a level he's not agreed? Wow, that's a first.

It's barely worthy of mention, apart from by those who want to ensure that Scotland finds it as hard as possible to go indy because of the size of the deficit gap is more than Scots can bare to loose.

 

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

Another bit of information, I don't know if you've seen this,Neil

 

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00497047.pdf

At a quick glance I can't see anything particularly remarkable. I seem to remember a broader range of subjects covered in previosu years - maybe it comes out in instalments - or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Bizarrely the Express manages to conjure this up out of it which i'm sure even Neil will agree is stretching things a wee bit.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/654010/Scotland-survey-voters-remain-UK

Fortunately no one reads the Express.

A quick glance had me in giggles, when Scots want to blame Westminster for the SNHS cuts that Sturgeon (Sturgeon personally!) imposed.

It's almost as good as the 23% I mentioned yesterday.

[LJS]

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You very definitely have said that Scotland can grow it's economy.

Correct as I said in the post you quoted!

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You've repeatedly said that it would and avoid cuts by doing so.

Bollocks!

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You and Sturgeon.

Don't think she has either.

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

*YOU* have presented NO evidence that smaller countries are more successful at growing economies, tho you have mentioned it.

A long time ago I linked to a report from Deutschebank (i think) called something like " the success of small nations"

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And I've given you more detail about that, to point out that if that "small countries grow faster" thing holds up to the level Salmond claimed the time it will take to make up the difference is 120 years.

 

What difference? Not the difference as it will be if & when Scotland becomes independent because no one knows what that will be.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

What difference? Not the difference as it will be if & when Scotland becomes independent because no one knows what that will be.

Exactly!

The tiny tiny TINY extra growth of small nations against big ones might be presumed to come to Scotland .... and if it does (a big 'if', but let's ignore that), it will take 120 years to bridge the poverty gap that Scotland will suffer via the loss of the Barnett money.

Meanwhile, have you ever bothered to look at the reduced growth and lower economic performance of the economies on Europe's geographical periphery? Ireland, Finland, Portugal, Greece, Baltic states?

Or even that *all* economies are trying to create maximum growth and doing worse than they wish for themselves?

No?

So you've found the positives and decided to ignore all the negatives because....? Intelligence and rationality isn't driving your thoughts, but prejudices such as Scottish exceptionalism are.

 

[LJS]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Exactly!

The tiny tiny TINY extra growth of small nations against big ones might be presumed to come to Scotland .... and if it does (a big 'if', but let's ignore that), it will take 120 years to bridge the poverty gap that Scotland will suffer via the loss of the Barnett money.

Meanwhile, have you ever bothered to look at the reduced growth and lower economic performance of the economies on Europe's geographical periphery? Ireland, Finland, Portugal, Greece, Baltic states?

Or even that *all* economies are trying to create maximum growth and doing worse than they wish for themselves?

No?

So you've found the positives and decided to ignore all the negatives because....? Intelligence and rationality isn't driving your thoughts, but prejudices such as Scottish exceptionalism are.

 

Have I ever stated better growth I'd guaranteed?    No!

Have I ever stated that this uncertain growth will cover your guesstimated deficit?   No!

Have I ever claimed Scottish exceptional?  No.

So, Neil, all made up....as usual!

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Have I ever stated better growth I'd guaranteed?    No!

Have I ever stated that this uncertain growth will cover your guesstimated deficit?   No!

Have I ever claimed Scottish exceptional?  No.

So, Neil, all made up....as usual!

So then you should be willing to accept the standard narrative, that Scotland might well be significantly poorer. So why won't you?

It's the only likely outcome, unless there's some sort of economic miracle that falls from the sky (see oil, another of which is massively unlikely), or if Scots are exceptional.

You won't accept it. You brush it off as scaremongering, and voice your hopes that an exceptional Scot will come up with an exceptional plan via which the most likely outcome can be avoided.

How many Scots do you think might vote indy on the basis of that most-likely outcome (instead of the sort of "you'll all be rich" bollocks that Salmond spouted)?

Why do Nats campaign with lies? Because they know they have no hope with the truth.

[eFestivals]

PS: you said you wouldn't support indy if Scotland would fall into the economic shit.

The economic shit is what you get unless there's that miracle.

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 20/03/2016 at 9:31 AM, eFestivals said:

You say Scotland can grow its economy faster than China.

 

Can I come back to this please. Did anyone actually say these words ? I mean specifically mention " growing our economy faster than China ? Did they mean each and every year and if so, for so long. 

Neil I think you were aiming this at myself or LJS but who did actually say it ?

Also, the " 120 years " thing. Who said these specific words or are we just taking another form of words and coming up with this ? It sounds impossible that anyone could know this. Who said it please ?

 

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Can I come back to this please. Did anyone actually say these words ? I mean specifically mention " growing our economy faster than China ? Did they mean each and every year and if so, for so long. 

Neil I think you were aiming this at myself or LJS but who did actually say it ?

Also, the " 120 years " thing. Who said these specific words or are we just taking another form of words and coming up with this ? It sounds impossible that anyone could know this. Who said it please ?

 

Hey Comfy hope you are fit as a flea!!

Comfy, the only person who ever said it is Neil. He took something Alec Salmond or you or me someone said about growth  - added in his own multi-billion deficit estimate and to everyone's astonishment then worked out that it would 120 years of Chinese growth to plug his own made up hole (ooh err!)

He then applied this logic to anyone who has ever suggested an independent Scotland might grow its economy a wee bit & claimed with unanswerable logic that we all said Scotland can grow faster than China. 

I mean you can't argue with logic like that Comfy. come on.

I think its time for a song.

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 18/03/2016 at 0:42 PM, eFestivals said:

I can only conclude that it's hatred of anything English or grasping an empty flag but you're too ashamed to put it in writing

It`s a shame that you cannot see past hatred and after all the posts and exchanges on here you " can only conclude " that hatred of anything English is what our indy debate is about.

For the record, I wanted to highlight that it is only your opinion and take on things and I am disappointed that you have reached this conclusion.

Can you be more specific on what you mean by " too ashamed to put it in writing " please. Who are you referring to ?

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Can I come back to this please. Did anyone actually say these words ? I mean specifically mention " growing our economy faster than China ? Did they mean each and every year and if so, for so long. 

Neil I think you were aiming this at myself or LJS but who did actually say it ?

If a self-funding Scotland isn't to have massive cuts, the "we'll grow our economy" that Sturgeon spouted endlessly to Andrew Neil the other day requires that Scotland grows its economy faster than China.

What don't you understand?

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Also, the " 120 years " thing. Who said these specific words or are we just taking another form of words and coming up with this ? It sounds impossible that anyone could know this. Who said it please ?

Salmond made a claim (including percentages) in the white paper for how small economies grow faster.

If a calculation is worked on his claim. that "grow faster" would take 120 years to make up the wealth difference with rUK.

What don't you understand?

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Hey Comfy hope you are fit as a flea!!

Comfy, the only person who ever said it is Neil. He took something Alec Salmond or you or me someone said about growth  - added in his own multi-billion deficit estimate and to everyone's astonishment then worked out that it would 120 years of Chinese growth to plug his own made up hole (ooh err!)

He then applied this logic to anyone who has ever suggested an independent Scotland might grow its economy a wee bit & claimed with unanswerable logic that we all said Scotland can grow faster than China. 

I mean you can't argue with logic like that Comfy. come on.

I think its time for a song.

 

The land of make believe is your own.

You've said Scotland can grow its economy and avoid being poorer.

I've put the claimed (supposed) faster growth of small countries into numbers - 120 years - just to demonstrate it's not the salvation for Scotland you want to claim of it.

Oh dear.

The land of make believe is the self-funding Scotland which isn't significantly poorer.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It`s a shame that you cannot see past hatred and after all the posts and exchanges on here you " can only conclude " that hatred of anything English is what our indy debate is about.

For the record, I wanted to highlight that it is only your opinion and take on things and I am disappointed that you have reached this conclusion.

Can you be more specific on what you mean by " too ashamed to put it in writing " please. Who are you referring to ?

 

To see what you see, you have to share your vision with me. You won't.

So there's no vision, or there's a vision you're too embarrassed to share.

[eFestivals]

I see that Sturgeon has laid out the SNP's tax plans.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/22/snp-will-not-adopt-osbornes-40p-tax-threshold-change

I now realise I've been a big of a numptie about the rise in the 40% threshold - cos Gidiot's recently announced change is for 2017 and not right now ... so Sturgeon saying she'll not implement it doesn't end up as being a tax rise, just not passing on a cut.

But I also see that, contrary to what LJS and comfy (and a million other snippers) had been urging, and as i'd been predicting, she's bottled out of changing the higher rate back to 50%, and promised that she won't for all of the next parliament.

So that's the end of claims that Scotland wants to do things differently and more fairly, and it also ensures that the deficit gap remains just as large (actually: it's growing!) which helps makes indy too unpalatable for most Scots to vote for - because for all the while the gap remains as large, the cuts caused by indy will have to be deep.

A smart SNP politician who is serious about wanting indy would be looking for a way - any way - to try and close that gap (blaming others, of course), to try to make the move to self-financing as painless as possible.

So either she's not smart, or she wants power more than she wants indy. Take your pick.

PS: I see sturgeon is claiming that not changing the 40% threshold as Osborne is doing " could generate more than £1bn of additional revenues" ... which means there must be approximately 2.5M higher rate tax payers in Scotland. Truly exceptional (with her lies!).

Edited March 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PPS ... /cue two million snippers saying "how can NOT implementing a cut 'generate more'?" in the same way they went at Dugdale.

Wot? They're not? You mean those snippers operate double standards and are duplicitous w*nkers?

And there was me thinking they were different and honest (un)like the politicians they support.

PMSL

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Great to be voting in an election where parties are competing over how to use the tax system to improve services.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

Great to be voting in an election where parties are competing over how to use the tax system to improve services.

Yep.

And you'll be rejecting the more-socialist options in favour of something more to the right.

In fact, you'll be voting in support of the 2nd most right-wing (major) party in Scotland. Even the DumbLibs are to the left of you.

Oh how things change.

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Just for information, from what I'm reading the tax cut is worth a maximum* of £322 per higher-rate taxpayer, and HMRC says there's 355,000 of these in Scotland

(* not everyone will 'lose' this amount, because some people will be earning between £45k and the current threshold)

322 x 355,000 = £144,310,000

It's a piddly amount. It does nothing meaningful in revenue-raising (for whatever purpose that extra revenue might be used for) and isn't enough extra tax to scare anyone away.

But like something else recently announced, its a carrot for the rabid. Something to help ensure people stay on board (rather than drift off to a real left wing alternative) while not really doing anything.

I think the word some might used is 'timid'. I'm thinking about Sandy Shaw songs myself.

Edited March 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yep.

And you'll be rejecting the more-socialist options in favour of something more to the right.

In fact, you'll be voting in support of the 2nd most right-wing (major) party in Scotland. Even the DumbLibs are to the left of you.

Oh how things change.

 

I have 2 votes. The one that actually might make a difference to the result will not be going to the SNP.

That is now certain given their rather pathetic announcement today.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

I have 2 votes. The one that actually might make a difference to the result will not be going to the SNP.

That is now certain given their rather pathetic announcement today.

I think that's the most condemning thing you've ever said of them.

It's a start, I guess.

(no, I'm not expecting you to abandon your support, just hoping you might abandon the free pass. Moving the free-pass from Labour to the SNP is not a progression for the better in Scottish politics but a repeat of the same thing in a different place - particularly when you end up going with the sort of line Blair would be proud of when having started off saying that was what you were rejecting).

[lost]

So if we are going to end up with different rates of tax from 2017 how does this work? Is it based on the employers or employees location? If I live in England and commute to a job in Scotland or live in Scotland and commute to a job in England will employers now need to run two payrolls or will people have to start filing a tax return to either reclaim or pay the extra tax?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I think that's the most condemning thing you've ever said of them.

it may be the strongest word i've used but I have regularly criticised them for being risk averse & over cautious which is exactly what they are doing again.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

It's a start, I guess.

(no, I'm not expecting you to abandon your support, just hoping you might abandon the free pass.

I have never given anyone a free pass

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Moving the free-pass from Labour to the SNP is not a progression for the better in Scottish politics but a repeat of the same thing in a different place - particularly when you end up going with the sort of line Blair would be proud of when having started off saying that was what you were rejecting).

I agree - free passes afre not good except on buses.

Here is the SNP's rationale for their rather underwhelming tax proposals..

We back the 50p top rate of tax across the UK, but to do it in Scotland alone could put millions in revenues at risk.

 

Quote

If just seven per cent of top rate taxpayers change their tax arrangements the Scottish Government could lose £30 million in revenues in a single year, putting the funding of our public services at risk. The Scottish Government has published a policy analysis of the impact of making changes to the additional rate in Scotland only, which you can read here.

(or here even http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00497818.pdf)

I'd be interested to know which came first, the policy or the analysis.

 

The big problem fpr the SNP as I see it is summed up well on twitter by my pro - Indy son

Quote

Hosie's point that a 50p rate would work at a UK level but not in Scotland shows a worrying level of amnesia re case for independence.

 

I understand practical issues, but SNP candidly admitting Scots fiscal policy will always be about context set by WM, is fraught with risk.