General Politics Thread

[Peppino Impastato]

Wrong. Corporation tax is levied where profits are legally declared. See the use of the double-Irish-Dutch-sandwich used by lots of multinationals and financial services organisations to minimise their tax liability.

True, and the UK government facilitates these companies declaring them I London, which would of course be impossible if Scotland was independent. This was clearly established and rgued by nobody in the referendum when banks were going to register in London but freely acknowledged they would still pay tax in Scotland anyway.

[Ad Lib]

True, and the UK government facilitates these companies declaring them I London, which would of course be impossible if Scotland was independent. This was clearly established and rgued by nobody in the referendum when banks were going to register in London but freely acknowledged they would still pay tax in Scotland anyway.

This is a grotesque oversimplification of how registered office shifting works. The point about companies registered in England and specifically London is that they are there for access to certain financial markets. The corporation tax receipts you are tentatively trying to claim for Scotland are ones in an industry that is both extremely volatile and which is the easier in the world to manipulate or shift profits within a corporate group to pay less tax through jurisdictional exploitation.

In order to get any of this revenue Scotland would need an aggressively low corporation tax scheme, in all likelihood even lower than Ireland's, which would drastically reduce corporate tax revenue elsewhere. The reality is that Scotland would not be able to initiate this kind of tax aggression, especially not if it wanted to remain in a currency union or to otherwise share a currency with the rest of the UK. The much more limited access to bailout funds for a country Scotland's size than the UK too, so any move back to Scotland for these organisations would carry a risk premium, especially until Scotland was able to persuade international markets that its highest deficit in the EU was both serviceable and being tackled.

It is not reasonable to speculatively include corporate tax revenues that simply aren't incurred in Scotland in GERS. To close the fiscal gap we would need to be underestimating corporate tax revenues in Scotland by 250%.

[Wee Willie]

Someone did a study showing that since 1997, Scottish votes made a difference (i.e. would have changed the outcome rather than the margin of victory) in a grand total of 21 out of 5000 votes - so about 0.5% of the time.  Granted that's been during a time of majority governments - and one stable coalition. That would be different under times of minority or unstable coalition governments where a non aligned (i.e. not Labour, not Tories) Scottish bloc probably could swing more than a few votes. However, our FPTP system isn't designed to create those types of government, so they are relatively rare.

 

The point is the same however, the preponderance of English MPs means that Scottish votes are almost always useless in deciding the outcome of parliamentary votes, denying Scotland any leverage in getting itself a better deal from any Westminster deliberations.

My apologies.

I see where I went wrong.

I am, of course referring to modern politics in Scotland where there is only one democratically elected party representing Scotland.

You, and probably Ad Lib are referring to the time when most of Scotland’s representatives had to ask their bosses down in London which way to vote.

Of course these Labour, Tory & Lib Dem MP’s would sometimes be on the winning side depending on how the vote went.

Nowadays I will accept your last paragraph:

The point is the same however, the preponderance of English MPs means that Scottish votes are almost always useless in deciding the outcome of parliamentary votes, denying Scotland any leverage in getting itself a better deal from any Westminster deliberations.

That is referring to British politics and I would say that in International politics Scotland has absolutely no say in any of it.

One of the perks of being a part of Britain.

[Ad Lib]

Wee Willie, given that UK votes in the EU Parliament are "almost always useless" in deciding what laws are passed that apply to us under the Lisbon Treaty, should we leave the EU?

[Wee Willie]

Wee Willie, given that UK votes in the EU Parliament are "almost always useless" in deciding what laws are passed that apply to us under the Lisbon Treaty, should we leave the EU?

I'm no sure.

As I said in another thread I'm no really concerned where Scotland is just now.

While we are hanging on to the coat-tails of England, Scotland has to go where England goes.

My vote is absolutely meaningless as some of our discussions have proved.

What I want is Independence (it's really my only concern just now) then I can freely decide which way to turn.

[Mr Rational]

Sunday trading booted down south.

[Paco]

Why have the SNP voted down Sunday trading laws in England/Wales? Genuine question. Can't see what's in it for them.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Paco

[1320Lichtie]

Why have the SNP voted down Sunday trading laws in England/Wales? Genuine question. Can't see what's in it for them.

Keeps workers getting premium pay on a Sunday does it not?

[doulikefish]

Why have the SNP voted down Sunday trading laws in England/Wales? Genuine question. Can't see what's in it for them.

 

Also tory rebels

Keeps workers getting premium pay on a Sunday does it not?

Yip,it affected scottish workers pay

[Johnny van Axeldongen]

When has Ad Lib NOT been a rabid Britnat? His "keep them honest" shite was fooling nobody.

 

[Antlion]

Did Labour not vote against Sunday trading laws too? I ask because the presenter on Reporting Scotland outright claimed, "the SNP have supported Tory rebels in rejecting the government's plans for relaxing Sunday trading laws."

It surely can't be that Labour's involvement was completely ignored as part of the BBC's agenda, can it?

[renton]

1. Scotland doesn't need independence to implement policies that deliver more equal wages

2. Scotland doesn't need independence to make its tax-base more progressive, though the evidence suggests this would raise less than 1/20th of its gap relative to the UK if we are talking principally the top rate of income tax.

3. Scotland doesn't need independence to deal with demographic issues. I strongly suspect there will be movement on the Post Study Work Visa, for example, after the EU referendum is done and dusted, to reintroduce something similar to the Fresh Talent initiative. There is room to create a supplementary work visa programme to attract people specifically to Scotland. Maybe try arguing for that before saying absolutely nothing can be done without independence.

4. The UK can't afford its own sovereignty. That's why we should be in the EU.

5. Our defence spend isn't even remotely close to closing our fiscal gap with the UK. It's less than 1/3 of it. We are talking abolition of the military, all the direct and indirect job losses from that, for no benefit

6. Scotland doesn't need independence to replace council tax with land value tax. The SNP government could have done this almost a decade ago!

Basically, the argument isn't about whether changes need to be made to the Scottish economy. The question is are those changes more viable and less costly inside or outside of the Union. The GERS figures point strongly to the reality that independence would be much more difficult than the present fiscal settlement, from which Scotland does extremely well.

1 i'm pretty sure it can't legally force companies into paying a higher minimum wage, or cap wages for those at the top so what policies would it use to create a more equal distribution of wages?

2. Even after Smith it'll only partially control income tax, with no control over CGT, VAT or Corporation tax. Without control of the PA it'll struggle to put a debt in tax inequality. 70% of the tax base will still be Westminster controlled.

3. Well we can wait and see, but the rumblings of your political antenna do not make a solid policy initiative. Nor does it equate to the flexibility of designing our own immigration system.

4. There are levels of interdependence. The UK can still optimise it's tax system to its own ends. Scotland by and large can't.

5. I never said it would, but it would save a couple of billion a year. The point is that there are several places where hundreds of millions to a few billion can be recovered. Either in reserved spending choices, or in stopping high tax earners fleeing the country.

6. Your right, it doesn't. And I'm dissapointing that the SNP hasn't done more to introduce it. It's an idea who's time has come in my opinion.

However, the central tenet of my argument is that if there is an unmanageable, unassailable deficit in Scotland's finances, it's caused by the choices made by the UK in terms of what taxes it raised and where it spends it's money. Far from a generous, UK dividend settlement we are slowly being strangled by it.

[Bishop Briggs]

 

Yip,it affected scottish workers pay

 

 

How? By your logic, English MPs should be allowed to interfere on Scottish laws that affect English workers' pay. That would mean goodbye to devolution and independence! You and the SNP MPs in Westminster are the BritNats' useful idiots.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bishop Briggs

[doulikefish]

How? By your logic, English MPs should be allowed to interfere on Scottish laws that affect English workers' pay. That would mean goodbye to devolution and independence! You and the SNP MPs in Westminster are the BritNats' useful idiots.

Cry me a river

[Peppino Impastato]

 

This is a grotesque oversimplification of how registered office shifting works. The point about companies registered in England and specifically London is that they are there for access to certain financial markets. The corporation tax receipts you are tentatively trying to claim for Scotland are ones in an industry that is both extremely volatile and which is the easier in the world to manipulate or shift profits within a corporate group to pay less tax through jurisdictional exploitation.

In order to get any of this revenue Scotland would need an aggressively low corporation tax scheme, in all likelihood even lower than Ireland's, which would drastically reduce corporate tax revenue elsewhere. The reality is that Scotland would not be able to initiate this kind of tax aggression, especially not if it wanted to remain in a currency union or to otherwise share a currency with the rest of the UK. The much more limited access to bailout funds for a country Scotland's size than the UK too, so any move back to Scotland for these organisations would carry a risk premium, especially until Scotland was able to persuade international markets that its highest deficit in the EU was both serviceable and being tackled.

It is not reasonable to speculatively include corporate tax revenues that simply aren't incurred in Scotland in GERS. To close the fiscal gap we would need to be underestimating corporate tax revenues in Scotland by 250%.

 

It is also demonstrably not reasonable to assign economic activity in Scotland to England when trying to give a full account of Scotland's fiscal position, as is done with many things in GERS, which you do not deny. Therefore the economic picture is inevitably a lot rosier than GERS paints, which is obviously the intention. Your position is inherently intellectually dishonest given you fail to concede that point, even though your entire reply is based around accepting that is the case.

There are other factors like the billion plus of Scotsh exports which are counted as English which would obviously have to be deducted from England's GDP and added to Scotland's to give a true picture as well as the 6000 square miles of sea Westminster stole from SCotland and any GDP generated within.

It is also the case the largest ratings agency Standard and Poors said Scotland would qualify for its highest credit rating without factoring in even a single drop of oil, which you also gloss over in your attempt to claim borrowing would be an issue.

Its also nothing to do with access to markets its about minimising tax liabilities, you are quite simply a liar, everything you say is based on dishonesty. You also say GERS has improved and the faults have been recctified, well okay then, the last study done of GERS said Scotland's fiscal position is actually £16.9 billion better than GERS paints, so what has happened to this money, can you account for it and show me the improvements made in GERS which you state have been made but provide no proof of?

PS - can you please write shorter replies this post took me about twenty minutes to write.

[Antlion]

How? By your logic, English MPs should be allowed to interfere on Scottish laws that affect English workers' pay. That would mean goodbye to devolution and independence! You and the SNP MPs in Westminster are the BritNats' useful idiots.

England does not have devolution nor is the UK a federal union. Stop pretending otherwise.

[Ad Lib]

1 i'm pretty sure it can't legally force companies into paying a higher minimum wage, or cap wages for those at the top so what policies would it use to create a more equal distribution of wages?

Neither of these things would:

1. Be done in an independent Scotland

2. Successfully close the pay gap without massively hurting vast swathes of our economy

2. Even after Smith it'll only partially control income tax, with no control over CGT, VAT or Corporation tax. Without control of the PA it'll struggle to put a debt in tax inequality. 70% of the tax base will still be Westminster controlled.

We mostly control income tax and control the bits that are actually important from the perspective of revenue raising and tax justice. We could not make a significant dent in income inequality if we controlled capital gains tax and it accounts for a tiny tiny tiny proportion of overall tax take. We couldn't control almost anything to do with VAT while being a member of the European Union.

We don't need control over the personal allowance. We can set a 0% rate that does the same thing.

4. There are levels of interdependence. The UK can still optimise it's tax system to its own ends. Scotland by and large can't.

No, the UK mostly can't. Global capitalism means it.

5. I never said it would, but it would save a couple of billion a year. The point is that there are several places where hundreds of millions to a few billion can be recovered. Either in reserved spending choices, or in stopping high tax earners fleeing the country.

You said "we could eliminate or at least massively reduce our deficit to manageable levels"

But £3 billion would be chicken feed against a £10 billion relative gap and a £15 billion deficit.

6. Your right, it doesn't. And I'm dissapointing that the SNP hasn't done more to introduce it. It's an idea who's time has come in my opinion.

However, the central tenet of my argument is that if there is an unmanageable, unassailable deficit in Scotland's finances, it's caused by the choices made by the UK in terms of what taxes it raised and where it spends it's money. Far from a generous, UK dividend settlement we are slowly being strangled by it.

This is just ridiculous though. That's not why Scotland has a deficit. It's because it spends a fuckton more per head than the rest of the UK. Its ability to raise taxes is (almost) on a part with the UK as a whole. The point is we are given a lot more to fund our public services than we could ever hope to have on our own. The UK hasn't "shafted" Scotland by giving it more money despite it being bang average as a revenue raiser. There are no obvious reasons why Scotland should be an exceptionally good revenue raiser. And so it isn't. That's not the UK's fault. That's just inevitable.

[Ad Lib]

It is also demonstrably not reasonable to assign economic activity in Scotland to England when trying to give a full account of Scotland's fiscal position, as is done with many things in GERS, which you do not deny. Therefore the economic picture is inevitably a lot rosier than GERS paints, which is obviously the intention. Your position is inherently intellectually dishonest given you fail to concede that point, even though your entire reply is based around accepting that is the case.

But economic activity is irrelevant to the public finances if you can't fucking tax it!

There are other factors like the billion plus of Scotsh exports which are counted as English which would obviously have to be deducted from England's GDP and added to Scotland's to give a true picture as well as the 6000 square miles of sea Westminster stole from SCotland and any GDP generated within.

It is not true that "£1 billion plus of Scottish exports are counted as English". This is a total fiction.

Westminster did not "steal 6000 square miles of sea from Scotland". Offshore revenues are in any case included in GERS.

It is also the case the largest ratings agency Standard and Poors said Scotland would qualify for its highest credit rating without factoring in even a single drop of oil, which you also gloss over in your attempt to claim borrowing would be an issue.

They said nothing of the sort. They said that Scotland could potentially qualify for a AAA rating given its GDP was comparable to that of other countries with a AAA rating and they said that as a country it was not over-dependent on oil for a share of its GDP. It did not say that it was not over-dependent on oil for tax revenue, and it did not say that even if it got almost no revenue from oil and gas that it would still get a AAA rating. You are mashing together a set of cautious statements they made.

Besides which, getting a AAA rating isn't the full story. You can have a AAA rating and still have much higher borrowing costs than other countries, including those with less good ratings.

Its also nothing to do with access to markets its about minimising tax liabilities, you are quite simply a liar, everything you say is based on dishonesty. You also say GERS has improved and the faults have been recctified, well okay then, the last study done of GERS said Scotland's fiscal position is actually £16.9 billion better than GERS paints, so what has happened to this money, can you account for it and show me the improvements made in GERS which you state have been made but provide no proof of?

It absolutely is about access to markets. The London Stock Exchange is literally a world-leader. Tax efficiency is a massive part of that too, but is also, as I said earlier, something you can't correct for. That tax would be avoided regardless of whether or not we controlled our own tax system because if you tried to close those loopholes those companies quite simply would conduct their economic activity explicitly in another country.

GERS has not, and has never, under-estimated, the Scottish fiscal balance by £16.9 billion pounds. You are quite simply lying.

PS - can you please write shorter replies this post took me about twenty minutes to write.

No. It's not my fault you're slow.

[Alan Stubbs]

They wouldn't be able to do it if we were independent. Should the Northern Irish be allowed to participate in the Sunday trading laws of the Republic? What about Spain Portugal's?

 

So Belgian MPs should be able to have a vote on Dutch laws? The same principle could be applied across Europe. MPs should should only vote on matters that directly affect their constituents, i.e. to whom they are accountable for their actions. That's a basic principle of democracy. It's you who is the dick.

 

Whit.

 

Thanks to your votes, Scotland to Britain is not the same as Belgium to Netherlands or Britain to Republic of Ireland.

 

What a bizarre argument.

 

I find it genuinely sad that there are swathes of Scottish people who vote for these imbeciles....

ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1457527519.996753.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using Pie & Bovril mobile app

 

I know you do.

 

[Peppino Impastato]

But economic activity is irrelevant to the public finances if you can't fucking tax it!

It is not true that "£1 billion plus of Scottish exports are counted as English". This is a total fiction.

Westminster did not "steal 6000 square miles of sea from Scotland". Offshore revenues are in any case included in GERS.

They said nothing of the sort. They said that Scotland could potentially qualify for a AAA rating given its GDP was comparable to that of other countries with a AAA rating and they said that as a country it was not over-dependent on oil for a share of its GDP. It did not say that it was not over-dependent on oil for tax revenue, and it did not say that even if it got almost no revenue from oil and gas that it would still get a AAA rating. You are mashing together a set of cautious statements they made.

Besides which, getting a AAA rating isn't the full story. You can have a AAA rating and still have much higher borrowing costs than other countries, including those with less good ratings.

It absolutely is about access to markets. The London Stock Exchange is literally a world-leader. Tax efficiency is a massive part of that too, but is also, as I said earlier, something you can't correct for. That tax would be avoided regardless of whether or not we controlled our own tax system because if you tried to close those loopholes those companies quite simply would conduct their economic activity explicitly in another country.

GERS has not, and has never, under-estimated, the Scottish fiscal balance by £16.9 billion pounds. You are quite simply lying.

No. It's not my fault you're slow.

 

I'm getting that you are a Britnat troll.  I asked what happened to the £16.9 billion reported as missing from Scotland's GDP which you claim has now been ammended, you didn't reply, and I asked you to account for these improvements which you claim have been made, can you do that?  

 

I'm not holding my breath for a reply from a troll but reply if you want.

 

For other people who aren't trolls I encourage you to look into the inaccuracies in GERS you will be astounded.

 

And Westminster did steal 6000 square miles of sea from Scotland and GDP in this area is not coutned in GERS, as I'm sure you know, but being intellectually dishonest you dismiss this.  You're a lying troll.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Peppino Impastato