General Politics Thread

[Suspect Device]

Could one of you well read people on here point me in the direction of past GERS figures and how this massive black hole relates to figures since the GERs figures started being published?

Cheers in advance

[Ad Lib]

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.

1. Yes, the meaning of words does alter what arguments are.

2. But this is the point. Without the security we have at the moment of a buffer literally being paid by taxpayers not in Scotland, our status as a cheap goods, low wage economy would almost instantly be put severely under threat. The pain involved in that kind of transition, even over 10-15 years, would be severe, and that is something people should weigh up when considering how worthwhile it is to opt into that austerity budget in the interim. Can we afford a second and third lost decade? Not only is the Reid Foundation report a crock of shit, it doesn't even demonstrate how achievable the more equal pay economy is that they associate with higher tax revenue. It's a pig in a poke.

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?

4. '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.

3. By supporting the existing cross-party efforts to reinstate, for starters, the PSWV.

4. It's not empty. It's actual money being spent in Scotland now. I think we should have more control over renewable energy investment. We should be lobbying the UK government to increase its already pretty decent prioritisation of Scotland's renewable sector over that of other parts of the UK.

 

5. 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.

6. 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.

5. Yep. That's the price we should pay.

6. Almost all of that £200 million is coming from the 43% band and is even then hopelessly optimistic. And yes, half a billion against an £8 billion fiscal gap that's likely to rise to £10 billion next year is chickenfeed. It's about 5%. Where's the other 95% coming from?

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

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

7. It depends how high they are and how they're implemented. They would raise no less than your magical 43% rate of tax.

8. No, because there's just not much we can do about it in the short term. Which is why we should milk the British cow as much as we can for as long as we can until the fundamental structural weaknesses of our economy are resolved, instead of jumping ship and hoping no one will notice we're fucked. The problem is unsolveable until I am roughly in my 60s, but the consequences of it being unsolveable are essentially nil in the Union and massive outside of it.

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.

Literally no one is against a high wage economy. The question is how do you viably deliver it without wrecking your economy. Almost everything you've outlined could be done without independence, or would incur significant fiscal cost and risk on independence that we simply don't have to assume at all just now.

I believe that Westminster will help us, is helping us and us fundamentally not antagonistic to Scotland. The gargantuan subsidies it has given to Scotland in my lifetime is testament to that. But the time will come when we have to accept some responsibility for ourselves and the question is is it better to do that over 40 years with a safety net or to try to do it now without one.

[Ad Lib]

Could one of you well read people on here point me in the direction of past GERS figures and how this massive black hole relates to figures since the GERs figures started being published?

Cheers in advance[/size]

Have a read of this: http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/gers-2014-15-reasons-to-be-cheerful.html

And in particular look at this table:

 

The figures for Scotland relative to the UK are the worst they've been since the start of devolution for three years on the trot.

ETA: This gives an average since devolution of a fiscal transfer of about £450 per person per year from the rest of the UK to Scotland, and about £430 since the SNP came into Government and about £790 since they won a majority.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Ad Lib

[Fide]

Have a read of this: http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/gers-2014-15-reasons-to-be-cheerful.html

And in particular look at this table:

 

The figures for Scotland relative to the UK are the worst they've been since the start of devolution for three years on the trot.

 

Pleasing to see that with fossil fuels not lasting forever, a Scotland without oil and gas has improved for 3 years on the bounce.

 

#strength

#jobs

#broadshouldersofScotland

[Peppino Impastato]

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.

Yeah that's likely the people who are cutting payments to disabled people want to spend billions subsidising Scotland out of solidarity yeah good one, it's cause, as the last two economic studies of GERS have said, Scotland is a cash cow subsidising the uk.

Nd yes that is how exports are calculated you can't just dismiss something cause it undermines your argument, all Scottish exports that leave an English port are counted as English it's a simple fact, most of the whisky industry is also attributed to London as the head offices are there. And they did steal 6000 square miles of sea that's also a fact, just dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

[Ad Lib]

Yeah that's likely the people who are cutting payments to disabled people want to spend billions subsidising Scotland out of solidarity yeah good one, it's cause, as the last two economic studies of GERS have said, Scotland is a cash cow subsidising the uk. Nd yes that is how exports are calculated you can't just dismiss something cause it undermines your argument, all Scottish exports that leave an English port are counted as English it's a simple fact, most of the whisky industry is also attributed to London as the head offices are there. And they did steal 6000 square miles of sea that's also a fact, just dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

You are a poundshop Paolo Sergio and I claim my groat.

[Fide]

You are a poundshop Paolo Sergio and I claim my groat.

 

Yeah you really tore his argument apart there, Libbers.

 

It's interesting that you withhold your usual tl;dr drivel when you don't have anything to come back with.

[renton]

1. Yes, the meaning of words does alter what arguments are.

2. But this is the point. Without the security we have at the moment of a buffer literally being paid by taxpayers not in Scotland, our status as a cheap goods, low wage economy would almost instantly be put severely under threat. The pain involved in that kind of transition, even over 10-15 years, would be severe, and that is something people should weigh up when considering how worthwhile it is to opt into that austerity budget in the interim. Can we afford a second and third lost decade? Not only is the Reid Foundation report a crock of shit, it doesn't even demonstrate how achievable the more equal pay economy is that they associate with higher tax revenue. It's a pig in a poke.

3. By supporting the existing cross-party efforts to reinstate, for starters, the PSWV.

4. It's not empty. It's actual money being spent in Scotland now. I think we should have more control over renewable energy investment. We should be lobbying the UK government to increase its already pretty decent prioritisation of Scotland's renewable sector over that of other parts of the UK.

 

5. Yep. That's the price we should pay.

6. Almost all of that £200 million is coming from the 43% band and is even then hopelessly optimistic. And yes, half a billion against an £8 billion fiscal gap that's likely to rise to £10 billion next year is chickenfeed. It's about 5%. Where's the other 95% coming from?

7. It depends how high they are and how they're implemented. They would raise no less than your magical 43% rate of tax.

8. No, because there's just not much we can do about it in the short term. Which is why we should milk the British cow as much as we can for as long as we can until the fundamental structural weaknesses of our economy are resolved, instead of jumping ship and hoping no one will notice we're fucked. The problem is unsolveable until I am roughly in my 60s, but the consequences of it being unsolveable are essentially nil in the Union and massive outside of it.

Literally no one is against a high wage economy. The question is how do you viably deliver it without wrecking your economy. Almost everything you've outlined could be done without independence, or would incur significant fiscal cost and risk on independence that we simply don't have to assume at all just now.

I believe that Westminster will help us, is helping us and us fundamentally not antagonistic to Scotland. The gargantuan subsidies it has given to Scotland in my lifetime is testament to that. But the time will come when we have to accept some responsibility for ourselves and the question is is it better to do that over 40 years with a safety net or to try to do it now without one.

 

1. Whatever, you believe GERS is an accurate state of play.

 

2. Again, this is not a point where I believe we have to wait for independence. We would however need more dramatic devolution than we do currently, including power over the minimum wage. Certainly it's harder to do in a unitary state where it's relatively easy to relocate capital. However, it can be done. Raising the minimum wage will reduce some business costs as well, particularly around staff turnover and creates more disposable income that goes back into the local economy. We also have to create more high skilled,well paying jobs in the economy as well. Having control of Corporation tax and generating tax breaks for (example) R & D activities would help, here. It doesn't have to happen over night and it doesn't need to be painful. It does need to happen though.

 

3. Fine, what's the levels of immigration we can expect from that, how much will it grow our tax base in the next 5-10 years?

 

4. Yeah, we should - no argument from me.

 

5. I'm not sure how that would close the relative gap, if pension ages go up across the UK. Scotland's contributions would stay the same, but payouts would decrease due to our lower mortality age - thus the money would be erased from our economy.

 

6. Hey, your the one who said we should tax the middle classes and said it'd be a good start. Is it chicken feed, or a good start?

 

7. Again, you wanted to raise the middle class income tax, for the moment let's assume it raises the same as the "magical" 43p tax rate/50p tax increase again, so that's £400-600 million all in from those sources. Still chickenfeed, or a good start as you descirbed it previously?

 

8. The UK government controls most of our tax system, welfare system, our energy and defence policies and about 40-50% of all our spending. Without at least more radical devolution to gain control of these levers in order to address these fundamental structural issues? The relative deficit was put there by their policies, after all.

 

See that bit in bold, that's utter, utter bollocks. The UK has gotten a lot out of Scotland, whether men and materiale for empire, or wasting £300 billion in North Sea tax revenue since 1979. They've given the bare minimum back, and their policies, financial and social over the last 30 years have not been beneficial to Scotland. Once, Scotland did very well out of access to imperial markets. That time is long gone, and with it the utility of Union. The UK doesn't want to help us beyond the bare minimum of keeping hold of us to protect their 'special' status in the world. If they wanted to help Scotland help itself within Union, they had the opportunity to pursue radical devolution in the Scotland bill. They didn't, and now we possess few of the levers we would need to address that BALCK HOLE in the GERS accounts.

[Peppino Impastato]

You are a poundshop Paolo Sergio and I claim my groat.

I presume this is an attempt at humour.

And to deflect from your inability to counter points raised. I wonder if Westminster just tried to cut our budget by billions out of solidarity, perhaps they lied to us about oil wealth for 30 years out of solidarity too.A

[Fide]

1. Whatever, you believe GERS is an accurate state of play.

 

2. Again, this is not a point where I believe we have to wait for independence. We would however need more dramatic devolution than we do currently, including power over the minimum wage. Certainly it's harder to do in a unitary state where it's relatively easy to relocate capital. However, it can be done. Raising the minimum wage will reduce some business costs as well, particularly around staff turnover and creates more disposable income that goes back into the local economy. We also have to create more high skilled,well paying jobs in the economy as well. Having control of Corporation tax and generating tax breaks for (example) R & D activities would help, here. It doesn't have to happen over night and it doesn't need to be painful. It does need to happen though.

 

3. Fine, what's the levels of immigration we can expect from that, how much will it grow our tax base in the next 5-10 years?

 

4. Yeah, we should - no argument from me.

 

5. I'm not sure how that would close the relative gap, if pension ages go up across the UK. Scotland's contributions would stay the same, but payouts would decrease due to our lower mortality age - thus the money would be erased from our economy.

 

6. Hey, your the one who said we should tax the middle classes and said it'd be a good start. Is it chicken feed, or a good start?

 

7. Again, you wanted to raise the middle class income tax, for the moment let's assume it raises the same as the "magical" 43p tax rate/50p tax increase again, so that's £400-600 million all in from those sources. Still chickenfeed, or a good start as you descirbed it previously?

 

8. The UK government controls most of our tax system, welfare system, our energy and defence policies and about 40-50% of all our spending. Without at least more radical devolution to gain control of these levers in order to address these fundamental structural issues? The relative deficit was put there by their policies, after all.

 

See that bit in bold, that's utter, utter bollocks. The UK has gotten a lot out of Scotland, whether men and materiale for empire, or wasting £300 billion in North Sea tax revenue since 1979. They've given the bare minimum back, and their policies, financial and social over the last 30 years have not been beneficial to Scotland. Once, Scotland did very well out of access to imperial markets. That time is long gone, and with it the utility of Union. The UK doesn't want to help us beyond the bare minimum of keeping hold of us to protect their 'special' status in the world. If they wanted to help Scotland help itself within Union, they had the opportunity to pursue radical devolution in the Scotland bill. They didn't, and now we possess few of the levers we would need to address that BALCK HOLE in the GERS accounts.

 

Due to Ad Lib's policy of posting screeds of banal banter, I missed the bit in bold the first time.

 

That's a contender for the biggest crock of horseshit I have ever read on P&B.  If Ad Lib is serious and not trolling with that statement he has jumped every shark in the ocean.

[Peppino Impastato]

Maybe benevolent Westminster just refused to give us control of any means to grow and improve our econom and only gave us partial control of one tax which can't alter much and can only really serve to make our government unpopular out of solidarity.

As for subsidies well the subsidies Scotland has given Westminster in my lifetime are eye watering and dwarf any shortfall apparently being made up now

Edited March 10, 2016 by Peppino Impastato

[1320Lichtie]

Ad Lib the new HB. Ffs.

[Peppino Impastato]

He's a very bad unionist troll is all.

[Ira Gaines]

1320Lichtie, on 10 Mar 2016 - 13:59, said:

Ad Lib the new HB. Ffs.

 

That's unfair on HB. That guy at least had point and laugh value. As we can see with this ScotSquid character that's blatantly HB.

[Ad Lib]

2. Again, this is not a point where I believe we have to wait for independence. We would however need more dramatic devolution than we do currently, including power over the minimum wage. Certainly it's harder to do in a unitary state where it's relatively easy to relocate capital. However, it can be done. Raising the minimum wage will reduce some business costs as well, particularly around staff turnover and creates more disposable income that goes back into the local economy. We also have to create more high skilled,well paying jobs in the economy as well. Having control of Corporation tax and generating tax breaks for (example) R & D activities would help, here. It doesn't have to happen over night and it doesn't need to be painful. It does need to happen though.

3. Fine, what's the levels of immigration we can expect from that, how much will it grow our tax base in the next 5-10 years?

5. I'm not sure how that would close the relative gap, if pension ages go up across the UK. Scotland's contributions would stay the same, but payouts would decrease due to our lower mortality age - thus the money would be erased from our economy.

2. It's piss easy to relocate capital anywhere in a globalised world and a European single market especially.

For these measures to be substantial in their impact, it has to be extremely painful.

3. It depends on what kind of scheme is implemented and how many people want to come here. Scotland's not a particularly attractive place to come to.

5. I am suggesting that we raise the retirement age more quickly in Scotland than in England, meaning that Scots have to pay in for longer and, because they die faster, get less back. That would increase our net contributions in tax while cutting our take.

6. Hey, your the one who said we should tax the middle classes and said it'd be a good start. Is it chicken feed, or a good start?

 

7. Again, you wanted to raise the middle class income tax, for the moment let's assume it raises the same as the "magical" 43p tax rate/50p tax increase again, so that's £400-600 million all in from those sources. Still chickenfeed, or a good start as you descirbed it previously?

It's only a good start if you take it together with lots of other tax rises on the middle class, like, say, a 50% real terms hike on local taxation, abolition of all pensions reliefs and the like. We're talking properly fucking them over, not asking for an extra 5p in the pound.

8. The UK government controls most of our tax system, welfare system, our energy and defence policies and about 40-50% of all our spending. Without at least more radical devolution to gain control of these levers in order to address these fundamental structural issues? The relative deficit was put there by their policies, after all.

Almost all of these areas we would and could not significantly vary how much we spent or raised in taxes while being a functioning independent country that is as well off as we are just now with a £1400 per head fiscal transfer.

See that bit in bold, that's utter, utter bollocks. The UK has gotten a lot out of Scotland, whether men and materiale for empire, or wasting £300 billion in North Sea tax revenue since 1979. They've given the bare minimum back, and their policies, financial and social over the last 30 years have not been beneficial to Scotland. Once, Scotland did very well out of access to imperial markets. That time is long gone, and with it the utility of Union. The UK doesn't want to help us beyond the bare minimum of keeping hold of us to protect their 'special' status in the world. If they wanted to help Scotland help itself within Union, they had the opportunity to pursue radical devolution in the Scotland bill. They didn't, and now we possess few of the levers we would need to address that BALCK HOLE in the GERS accounts.

This is just lazy horseshit. Scotland's relative fiscal position hasn't been as bad as it is now since the Winter of Discontent, but in all bar three years since devolution it has received a fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK. The value of that transfer has been, on average, £450 per head per annum. And it's now £1400 and growing.

The whole point of a fiscal union is to share risk and reward. For all the good years where Scotland has paid in a bit more, it has just as many, and now many more, bad years when the opposite is the case. That's how pooling and sharing works. £300 billion of oil and gas revenues over 40 years isn't actually very much, and in my lifetime has been used to sustain substantially higher levels of public spending in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK.

We've had a decent deal out of it. It hasn't been spent or invested as well as it could have been, but Scotland's position just now is much the better for it.

[Peppino Impastato]

Ad Lib the lying troll at it again, even the uk government admits we would have been better off independent since oil and makes its argument for us staying on the present and oil running out, it's widely acknowledged this is the case mccrone report etc.

but ad Lib apparently has access to information nobody else does and argues the opposite is true. You need to improve your trolling, very poor.

[renton]

2. It's piss easy to relocate capital anywhere in a globalised world and a European single market especially.

For these measures to be substantial in their impact, it has to be extremely painful.

3. It depends on what kind of scheme is implemented and how many people want to come here. Scotland's not a particularly attractive place to come to.

5. I am suggesting that we raise the retirement age more quickly in Scotland than in England, meaning that Scots have to pay in for longer and, because they die faster, get less back. That would increase our net contributions in tax while cutting our take.

It's only a good start if you take it together with lots of other tax rises on the middle class, like, say, a 50% real terms hike on local taxation, abolition of all pensions reliefs and the like. We're talking properly fucking them over, not asking for an extra 5p in the pound.

Almost all of these areas we would and could not significantly vary how much we spent or raised in taxes while being a functioning independent country that is as well off as we are just now with a £1400 per head fiscal transfer.

This is just lazy horseshit. Scotland's relative fiscal position hasn't been as bad as it is now since the Winter of Discontent, but in all bar three years since devolution it has received a fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK. The value of that transfer has been, on average, £450 per head per annum. And it's now £1400 and growing.

The whole point of a fiscal union is to share risk and reward. For all the good years where Scotland has paid in a bit more, it has just as many, and now many more, bad years when the opposite is the case. That's how pooling and sharing works. £300 billion of oil and gas revenues over 40 years isn't actually very much, and in my lifetime has been used to sustain substantially higher levels of public spending in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK.

We've had a decent deal out of it. It hasn't been spent or invested as well as it could have been, but Scotland's position just now is much the better for it.

 

Christ, this is getting dull.

 

2. Ok, show me the impact, where's your data? If it's going to be so painful, let's see it.

 

3. I rather like the place. Edinburgh sure beats the shit out of Reading.

 

5. Your suggesting the devolution of a huge chunk of the largest part of the welfare budget. Aye, good luck with that. It's hard enough getting them to devolve fucking road signs.

 

That last bit there, is also utter, utter bollocks. We've seen precious little reward from the Union for many decades now. As for the £300 billion over 40 years not being much? Well, the Norweigens seemed to make it last. You grew up in Kirkcaldy, Do you know what that place looked like prior to 1979? don't fucking tell me that's what a good deal looks like. Scotland has been positively shat on from a great height by the Union for decades now, through ruinous economic and social decisions.

[Peppino Impastato]

The 300 billion is merely oil revenues, you also have corporation tax and all the otheraassociated taxes, between 1980 and 2012 Scotlandsubsidised the uk to the tune of 222 billion. Yet ad Lib claims we were subsidised over this time.

[Tam_O_Shanter]

Surely with Scottish elections looming, Ad Lib could be spending his time more wisely. I could understand why wee Willie and his minions wouldn't want him interacting with voters on the doorsteps, but surely there are envelopes needing stuffed or leaflets needing delivered. It would give us all a wee rest.

[Ad Lib]

Christ, this is getting dull.

 

2. Ok, show me the impact, where's your data? If it's going to be so painful, let's see it.

With the exception of Greece, there are zero capital controls in the EU.

3. I rather like the place. Edinburgh sure beats the shit out of Reading.

Edinburgh is shite.

5. Your suggesting the devolution of a huge chunk of the largest part of the welfare budget. Aye, good luck with that. It's hard enough getting them to devolve fucking road signs.

Nope it was really straightforward to devolve road signs.

That last bit there, is also utter, utter bollocks. We've seen precious little reward from the Union for many decades now. As for the £300 billion over 40 years not being much? Well, the Norweigens seemed to make it last. You grew up in Kirkcaldy, Do you know what that place looked like prior to 1979? don't fucking tell me that's what a good deal looks like. Scotland has been positively shat on from a great height by the Union for decades now, through ruinous economic and social decisions.

Kirkcaldy's a lovely wee town and is thriving. Stop talking the Kingdom of Fife down.