Scottish Independence

[xbl]

Yet again, politics of race from the Unionists.

[LinkinFighter]

http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/positive/10reasons

[AUFC90]

http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/positive/10reasons

I was expecting, for the 1st time, to see actual reasons why we should stick to the union...

There's always next time.

[Sooky]

The BBC suggesting many changes to the Union Jack

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017

n

Some interesting designs going on right there!

I've always worked under the assumption that in the event of a YES vote, the Union flag will almost certainly just stay exactly the same as it is now. Is that right? Going by some of those pictures, that would most certainly be the best thing to do!

"It was created at the time of the union of the crowns," he says - as opposed to full political union, which did not happen for another 100 years. Since the movement for Scottish independence proposes to retain the British monarchy, redefining the flag in the event of a Yes vote would not make sense, says Rosindell.

Meh. That makes sense.

[Jamaldo]

I'll just stick this in here.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-things-change/

[Baxter Parp]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brandon-malone-ruk-can-t-claim-continuing-state-1-3220804

"rUK can't claim to be a continuing state."

[Dunning1874]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/05/scottish-independence-boosted-cost-green-energy-reforms-ageing

[xbl]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brandon-malone-ruk-can-t-claim-continuing-state-1-3220804

"rUK can't claim to be a continuing state."

And what does a member of the law society know about law? He's clearly no HB.

[~~~]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html

"The betrayal of Scotland"

[Ross.]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html

"The betrayal of Scotland"

Bit of an old one, but sums up how trustworthy Westminster is.

[xbl]

Bit of an old one, but sums up how trustworthy Westminster is.

One for you Ross:

[ayrmad]

One for you Ross:

childcare.jpg

Christ, the devo mum looks like she's got an enormous dildo, don't know how happy devo dad is going to be about that.

[Mr Bairn]

One for you Ross:

childcare.jpg

So, in theory, the Scottish parliament could use their tax varying powers and implement this policy?

[ayrmad]

So, in theory, the Scottish parliament could use their tax varying powers and implement this policy?

How many explanations do you require b4 it sinks in?

[xbl]

So, in theory, the Scottish parliament could use their tax varying powers and implement this policy?

No. Look at the image. Revenue generated by this policy does not go back to Scotland. Revenue generated by this policy goes to Westminster, and makes absolutely no difference to our budget for the next year. Tax raising has nothing to do with it. In simple terms, it goes like this. In London, or an independent Scotland it goes like this:

£x used to pay for childcare policy

childcare policy generates revenues of £y

Revenues of £y go to treasury

£y used to pay for next year of childcare, meaning government has to pay £x-y extra

Right now, it would be different for us:

£x used to pay for childcare policy

childcare policy generates revenues of £y

Revenues of £y go to Westminster treasury

These revenues make NO difference to money received by Scottish government

Therefore, we get no extra money, meaning government has to pay the full £x

So using the varying tax powers changes nothing, all it means is that we have to pay more to give Westminster more money.

[Mr Bairn]

No. Look at the image. Revenue generated by this policy does not go back to Scotland. Revenue generated by this policy goes to Westminster, and makes absolutely no difference to our budget for the next year. Tax raising has nothing to do with it. In simple terms, it goes like this. In London, or an independent Scotland it goes like this:

£x used to pay for childcare policy

childcare policy generates revenues of £y

Revenues of £y go to treasury

£y used to pay for next year of childcare, meaning government has to pay £x-y extra

Right now, it would be different for us:

£x used to pay for childcare policy

childcare policy generates revenues of £y

Revenues of £y go to Westminster treasury

These revenues make NO difference to money received by Scottish government

Therefore, we get no extra money, meaning government has to pay the full £x

So using the varying tax powers changes nothing, all it means is that we have to pay more to give Westminster more money.

So, in theory, a devolved Scotland with fiscal autonomy would be able to implement this policy?

[ayrmad]

So, in theory, a devolved Scotland with fiscal autonomy would be able to implement this policy?

You're starting to turn me round to the belief that you are LunarC.

[xbl]

So, in theory, a devolved Scotland with fiscal autonomy would be able to implement this policy?

If we received all the revenues we generated, then in theory, yes. To give you another example, lets just say that the Scottish government wanted to encourage spending and revenue flow. Now if they were fully independent (or fully 100% fiscally devolved), they could use a big chunk of that to give everyone a tax cut. The theory then goes that because people have more money in their pocket, then they will spend more, and so the government would get their money back in other ways (vat, increased corporation tax, sales etc.), therefore paying the cost of that tax cut.

However, lets just say that in 2015 under the Scotland Act, First Minister Lamont (I know, I know), implemented this imaginative and bold policy (I know, I know). Under the new rules, then the tax cut will simply get lopped off our block grant, giving us less money to spend, because we've cut tax. However, any increased revenue from this (vat, sales etc.) will flow straight to Westminster, and will NOT be reflected in our pocket money for the next year.

This means there is zero motivation to do anything bold like this under devolution.

[Mr Bairn]

If we received all the revenues we generated, then in theory, yes. To give you another example, lets just say that the Scottish government wanted to encourage spending and revenue flow. Now if they were fully independent (or fully 100% fiscally devolved), they could use a big chunk of that to give everyone a tax cut. The theory then goes that because people have more money in their pocket, then they will spend more, and so the government would get their money back in other ways (vat, increased corporation tax, sales etc.), therefore paying the cost of that tax cut.

However, lets just say that in 2015 under the Scotland Act, First Minister Lamont (I know, I know), implemented this imaginative and bold policy (I know, I know). Under the new rules, then the tax cut will simply get lopped off our block grant, giving us less money to spend, because we've cut tax. However, any increased revenue from this (vat, sales etc.) will flow straight to Westminster, and will NOT be reflected in our pocket money for the next year.

This means there is zero motivation to do anything bold like this under devolution.

Ok, well explained.

Would the policy be too expensive to run as a public service in itself?

[Baxter Parp]

Ok, well explained.

Would the policy be too expensive to run as a public service in itself?

Where would we get the money from?