General Politics Thread

[throbber]

I get pretty sick of David Cameron throwing back the mistakes of Blair and Brown into Corbyns face at every opportunity. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows Corbyn ha a totally different agenda to the last labour government.

[Antlion]

I was very careful about the way I phrased that post. I said a party that believes that should not, not should not be allowed to.

You don't need to alter the constitutional settlement to honour that.

You belong to one of the most unprincipled parties in this country: an absolutely disgusting bunch of wheedling, disingenuous rogues. You have very little purchase on piously pronouncing what other parties "should" do. Get your own house in order.

[Ad Lib]

Also sorry Renton but this is fantasy from you.

The truth is Scotland does not have a revenue raising problem. It has a spending problem. Its share of revenue raising is broadly in line with its share of the UK population and its share of GDP. There are few if any reasons to believe that Scotland is raising much less revenue than it could do from its current onshore tax base.

The powers you identify would not be of great assistance to this. A higher minimum wage, for example, would not raise much more revenue, and may in fact reduce the take from other taxes. Unless you planned to cut the personal allowance, pulling more low and middle earners into higher taxes, it similarly would not help you with revenue.

Most of the high net worth and high income individuals on this island live within an hour's drive of London. Scotland already has a much lower proportion of extremely wealthy people. Even ignoring the economic mobility of these people you could not significantly increase the tax take from them. Even if we had our population share of additional rate taxpayers the 50p rate for example wouldn't have raised even half a percent of the fiscal gap between us and the rest of the UK.

Scotland's problem is a spending problem. We spend the equivalent of more than the NHS Scotland budget beyond our means.

Independence would mean making extremely tough choices to remain credible on international lending markets. We are talking departmental spending cuts of 20% just to get to a comparable fiscal position to that of the rest of the UK, which is still one of the worst in the EU.

Put away the magic wand about how wonderful these powers are and compare the spells it can actually cast to the hole that actually exists. We are taking a massive rea terms haircut to schools, hospitals, benefits, local government, probably abolishing the military, slashes to colleges and universities, an axe to transport infrastructure.

Not to be better off; just to get to where we are just now.

The bottom line is that Scotland would need to grow like Ireland during its boom even for this prospectus to be remotely viable, and that prospectus is incompatible with the equality goals you purport to care about.

I do not believe that an independent Scotland would even remotely fare that well in the current circumstances.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Ad Lib

[Wee Willie]

Perhaps you missed them campaigning for devolution; engaging in the Smith Commission; claiming that Holyrood should be a permanent part of the constitution ... Why would they do this if they had no complaints about Westminster making laws for Scotland?

Glad to see you admitting that regionalists are only too happy to complain about Scotland's elected representatives having a say in UK-wide votes if they don't like the party those representatives belong to. What a craven, anti-democratic, vile bunch.

Good call.

This is whit Ad Lib (a budding politician) thinks of me (a Scottish voter) and Democracy (at least the Scottish variety)

 

 

Okay Wee Willie, I'll entertain your drivel.

I hope I’m in the audience if you are ever at a husting trying tae convince people tae vote for you and your party.

I’ll ask the same questions and I hope ye give the same answer.

That’s bound tae get ye votes.

 

I do not, "in a wider context" "want English politicians to decide the UK/Scotlands place in the world".

I want British politicians to decide the UK's place in the world and for Scottish politicians to have an active role in shaping those decisions.

and how does that work?

No matter how ye tart it up it IS still English politicians who decide foreign policy or any policy involving the big bad world.

The only way for Scottish politicians to have an active role is if their policies/votes coincide with English ones.

 

I don't care if Scottish MPs voted not to bomb ISIS.

What a disgraceful statement.

In other words you don’t care how Scottish MP’s vote.

I hope you stand up and say that at your next Lib party convention.

Sadly, in a way, you are correct, Scottish MP’s are irrelevant in a UK environment.

 

When we deal with defence we have pooled sovereignty. We have chosen to do that.

Why do you accept that we (as a people) chose to stay part of the UK but you don’t accept when the same people chose (through our MP’s) NOT to bomb ISIS and NOT to have nuclear submarines in Scotland.

Is that your brand of democracy?

 

The only virtuous reasons for having Scotland not pool sovereignty with others is if you think that it would make better decisions and decisions that make the world a better place.

You as a quasi Scottish politician should ken better than tae make that statement.

The point is that the decisions (and buck) should stop with Scottish politicians and no politicians from South Britain.

 

Surely if I were content that "England" decides that would make me an AngloNat and not a BritNat?

Whichever cap fits.

England has roughly ten times the politicians that Scotland has.

Please tell me how England does NOT decide UK policy.

...and I'm still waiting on him answering some of these questions.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Wee Willie

[renton]

Also sorry Renton but this is fantasy from you.

The truth is Scotland does not have a revenue raising problem. It has a spending problem. Its share of revenue raising is broadly in line with its share of the UK population and its share of GDP. There are few if any reasons to believe that Scotland is raising much less revenue than it could do from its current onshore tax base.

The powers you identify would not be of great assistance to this. A higher minimum wage, for example, would not raise much more revenue, and may in fact reduce the take from other taxes. Unless you planned to cut the personal allowance, pulling more low and middle earners into higher taxes, it similarly would not help you with revenue.

Most of the high net worth and high income individuals on this island live within an hour's drive of London. Scotland already has a much lower proportion of extremely wealthy people. Even ignoring the economic mobility of these people you could not significantly increase the tax take from them. Even if we had our population share of additional rate taxpayers the 50p rate for example wouldn't have raised even half a percent of the fiscal gap between us and the rest of the UK.

Scotland's problem is a spending problem. We spend the equivalent of more than the NHS Scotland budget beyond our means.

Independence would mean making extremely tough choices to remain credible on international lending markets. We are talking departmental spending cuts of 20% just to get to a comparable fiscal position to that of the rest of the UK, which is still one of the worst in the EU.

Put away the magic wand about how wonderful these powers are and compare the spells it can actually cast to the hole that actually exists. We are taking a massive rea terms haircut to schools, hospitals, benefits, local government, probably abolishing the military, slashes to colleges and universities, an axe to transport infrastructure.

Not to be better off; just to get to where we are just now.

The bottom line is that Scotland would need to grow like Ireland during its boom even for this prospectus to be remotely viable, and that prospectus is incompatible with the equality goals you purport to care about.

I do not believe that an independent Scotland would even remotely fare that well in the current circumstances.

 

Nope, it isn't.

 

http://reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/InvestGoodSociety.pdf

 

 

Conclusion: This exercise tells us nothing of the difficulties in achieving economic reform but it does demonstrate that success comes with significant rewards. If Scotland could move substantially towards the top end of the spectrum of equitable income distribution it could generate a 35 per cent increase in income tax revenue without raising tax rates

 

 

There is a good correlation between tax take and income equality, indeed as previously noted -the scandanavian countries actually have a more regressive tax system but becuase they have a much better income equality, generate far higher tax takes.

 

as for having a spending issue, I agree. The two go hand in hand, a tax system not optimally geared towards the Scottish tax base, and spending decisions still largely in the hands of Westminster. If there is a spending problem then it is an issue with the current devolved settlement. We have little control over our tax system, our levels of social protection, how much we spend on defence or foreign policy, we can't legally set the minimum or living wage, nor massively incentivise companies to pay it either.

 

If there is a deficit between spending in the UK and Scotland then it's at least in part put there by the UK government, and it's not likely to improve over time, either. It is slowly strangling us.

[Granny Danger]

Basically oil is like Andy Murray,when its doing shite its scottish ,when its doing well its british

Oil is never going to be as good as Djokovic renewables.

[Ad Lib]

The Reid Foundation is a joke. Anyone taking them seriously should be listened to about as closely as the most right wing people in the Adam Smith Institute.

It is not remotely credible that Scotland could or would raise a third more tax off the same tax base if it controlled all tax law.

The Scandinavians also don't generate significantly more in tax revenue and insofar as they do they do so with much higher municipal taxes on the low and middle paid.

[strichener]

The Reid Foundation is a joke.

 

Says the Lib Dem.

[renton]

The Reid Foundation is a joke. Anyone taking them seriously should be listened to about as closely as the most right wing people in the Adam Smith Institute.

It is not remotely credible that Scotland could or would raise a third more tax off the same tax base if it controlled all tax law.

The Scandinavians also don't generate significantly more in tax revenue and insofar as they do they do so with much higher municipal taxes on the low and middle paid.

 

So, let's look at it another way, given that you believe all opposition to your worldview is fantasy and a joke. Let's assume your right, that GERS is wholly accurate, that there is no credible way of raising extra taxes, that closing that deficit relative to the rUK would be prohibitive in terms of departmental cuts (and more so without independence, as we can't cut reserved spending) - so what's your answer? As Offshore revenues dwindle over the next decade, and we apparently can't raise revenue as fast as the rUK, what's your solution? To let the relative deficit grow and grow, relative to the rUK? To write it off as a dividend of our benevolent London masters, take the accusations of sponging on the chin and belt out another chorus of 'God save the Queen'?

 

I'd love ot hear how you intend to shut down that deficit within the current devolved settlement, or whether you even think we should bother.

[Ad Lib]

Says the Lib Dem.

It takes one to know one

[Ad Lib]

1. So, let's look at it another way, given that you believe all opposition to your worldview is fantasy and a joke. Let's assume your right, that GERS is wholly accurate

2. that there is no credible way of raising extra taxes

1. I've never said they're "wholly accurate". Just that they're the best estimate we have and in all likelihood a fairly good one.

2. I didn't say this. I said you couldn't do it on the scale you were talking about in anything like the timescale you were talking about.

that closing that deficit relative to the rUK would be prohibitive in terms of departmental cuts (and more so without independence, as we can't cut reserved spending) - so what's your answer?

Devolution of supplementary work visas, investing our Union bonus in new industries like the renewables sector, increase the state pension age to 75 in my lifetime, significantly raise income taxes on middle-earning Scots, introduce tuition fees as part of student finance, contemplate the reintroduction of prescription charges. Those would be good places to start. Nowhere near the whole way, but a decent start.

As Offshore revenues dwindle over the next decade, and we apparently can't raise revenue as fast as the rUK, what's your solution?

Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to use their money to rebalance our economy over the course of about thirty years would probably be a smart place to start.

To let the relative deficit grow and grow, relative to the rUK? To write it off as a dividend of our benevolent London masters, take the accusations of sponging on the chin and belt out another chorus of 'God save the Queen'?

I don't really care what they think about us. That seems a pretty insular attitude to take.

I'd love ot hear how you intend to shut down that deficit within the current devolved settlement, or whether you even think we should bother.

See above.

[Ross.]

The UK has an "economic black hole" of around £70bn. You clearly are too small and poor to run yourselves. Might as well let Brussels have complete control.

[bob the tank]

If Scotland is in such a financial black hole, why do Westminster want to hang on to us ? Because they can take all they want and then give back what they want, as simple is that. We pay for things which are in the "national interest", which will be a real benefit to Scotland, like London crossrail, HS2, most of Scottish exports leave through English ports and are classed as British exports, and aren't shown in our economic figures. Look at the bigger picture, this is only the tip of the iceberg, sorry, so called black hole

[Ad Lib]

If Scotland is in such a financial black hole, why do Westminster want to hang on to us ? Because they can take all they want and then give back what they want, as simple is that. We pay for things which are in the "national interest", which will be a real benefit to Scotland, like London crossrail, HS2, most of Scottish exports leave through English ports and are classed as British exports, and aren't shown in our economic figures. Look at the bigger picture, this is only the tip of the iceberg, sorry, so called black hole

Or maybe they want to "hang onto" us for the same reason they want to hang-on to the sinkholes of society Northern Ireland and Wales: because they're British and they believe in solidarity between our nations and are happy to share the risk for bigger ends?

Our exports are not classified as English on the basis that they transit through English ports. Don't be silly. That's not how exports are measured.

[Fide]

No it doesn't. Having debt is not the same as a "black hole". We are talking about deficits.

Except it didn't even come close to offsetting the drop. For that to be the case our offshore revenues would have had to have grown faster than the UK's growth in revenues by the amount by which the offshore revenues fell. Our onshore revenues grew more slowly than those of the rest of the UK.

I'm not contesting that the GDP of the on-shore economy has grown strongly. I'm contesting that that has translated into tax receipts to a level sufficient to compensate for that drop in oil revenue.

There you have it folks. The highest deficit as a percentage of GDP in the European Union is "not actually bad".

Cracking stuff.

 

A less than 1% drop in the Scottish economy justifies the entirely predictable caterwauling of the unionist media does it, aye?

 

And as has been pointed out, GERS figures are not a measure of how Scotland would perform as an independent nation.

 

 

 

[Ross.]

Or maybe they want to "hang onto" us for the same reason they want to hang-on to the sinkholes of society Northern Ireland and Wales: because they're British and they believe in solidarity between our nations and are happy to share the risk for bigger ends?

Our exports are not classified as English on the basis that they transit through English ports. Don't be silly. That's not how exports are measured.

 

I think it's more likely that they hang onto us through some misguided notion of still being an empire that is of real importance to the world and that Britain really is great and we need to show the world this once more, rather than simply accepting that the world has moved on and the UK needs to evolve.

[Ad Lib]

A less than 1% drop in the Scottish economy justifies the entirely predictable caterwauling of the unionist media does it, aye?

When we need it to be growing about three times as fast to pay the bills, yeah, it kind of is mate.

And as has been pointed out, GERS figures are not a measure of how Scotland would perform as an independent nation.

Right, but we need some pretty compelling reasons to believe that the situation would be radically different in an independent Scotland. We have no such reasons.

[Fide]

When we need it to be growing about three times as fast to pay the bills, yeah, it kind of is mate.

Right, but we need some pretty compelling reasons to believe that the situation would be radically different in an independent Scotland. We have no such reasons.

 

As wee Nic so deftly pointed out during FMQs this morning:

 

""Scotland's deficit wasn't created in an independent Scotland - it was created on Westminster's watch."

 

Do you not have enough faith in your country that we can do a better job alone?  I fully expect a reply laden with "blind faith" and "broad shoulders" and "pooling and sharing".

[renton]

1. I've never said they're "wholly accurate". Just that they're the best estimate we have and in all likelihood a fairly good one.

2. I didn't say this. I said you couldn't do it on the scale you were talking about in anything like the timescale you were talking about.

Devolution of supplementary work visas, investing our Union bonus in new industries like the renewables sector, increase the state pension age to 75 in my lifetime, significantly raise income taxes on middle-earning Scots, introduce tuition fees as part of student finance, contemplate the reintroduction of prescription charges. Those would be good places to start. Nowhere near the whole way, but a decent start.

Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to use their money to rebalance our economy over the course of about thirty years would probably be a smart place to start.

I don't really care what they think about us. That seems a pretty insular attitude to take.

See above.

 

1. semantics.

 

2. I never put a time scale on it. The study suggests a timescale of 10-15 years to transition towards a higher wage economy. Crucially, it doesn't say how - it merely models the outcome if such a transition is successful. I don't think that timescale is overly ambitious for at least moving some of the way there. Scotland is a cheap goods, low wage economy, it's not set in stone that it should be, and any number of financial, social and health metrics would be improved if we set ourselves to the task of transitioning to a high wage, more equal pre-distributed economy.

 

3. So to take these in turn: Visas are not currently devolved so how do we go about getting a hold of them, and using them?

 

'Investing our Union bonus' is as empty a piece of political rhetoric as I've ever heard. The Greens and the SNP wanted energy policy devolved, but it wasn't. So how do you incentivise that industry without access to the various levers that control it's subsidies? We can't even get access to the offshore revenue from oil and gas to re-direct into renewables.

 

Pensions come under reserved spending and as the life expectancy of Scots is lower, raising the age would only serve to increase the gap between us and the rUK, as we would still be contributing on a per population share but significantly not seeing the money back in the form of pension pay outs.

 

The reid foundation, who you think are a joke wanted to reintroduce the 50p tax rate and put in a new 43p band that would impact that senior professional level income (the middle class, right). They reckoned those two measures would raise £200 million per year. Now you could raise taxes on the lower bands to, lets say you managed to squeeze £300 million out of those changes - by your own reckoning that's chickenfeed in comparison to  a £15 billion BLACK HOLE.

 

What are the cost benefits of reintroducing tuition fees? hundreds of millions? Billions? You've go tthe figures I trust? same with prescription fees.

 

So beyond your rhetoric, there isn't a lot of solid movement towards reducing that BLACK HOLE.

 

FWIW, I believe we have to try and move towards a higher wage economy, for any number of reasons, and even if we only got half of the increase that the Common Weal report suggested over 15 years, alongside the more progressive tax rates mooted above, we'd get much closer to reducing our relative deficit to the rUK (I'd also intoduce an LVT - which Wightman thinks could raise significant sums: 4-6 billion per year). I'd introduce a scottish investment bank using the new borrowing powers to try and grow industries. For the rest? I think you need independence - and sooner rather than later. I've honestly got no problem in raising the retirement age, but in order to save money on that aspect of social protection you need to be able to collect it all back rather than a per head share from the UK. You might want to move away from the current Welfare system (something a higher wage economy would help massively with). I'd get rid of our ridiculous defence voerspend which would save £2 billion a year - much more than taxing the middle classes.

 

How you expect us to 'rebalance' our economy with the current levers at our disposal is beyond me, unless you think Westminster is going to help us? I doubt that.

 

... and it matters what they think of us. If you want us to live in this fucked up unitary state it matters for social cohesion that they don't resent us, or us them.

[Fide]

Additionally, I find it a source of genuine interest and bewilderment that rabid Britnats from Ad Lib to right wing journalists and MPs in Scotland all believe that Scotland running a deficit is a vindication of Westminster rule.

 

They love when Scotland doesn't do well and want that to continue.

 

Forelock tugging and Scottish cringe at it's worst.