When will indyref2 happen?

[AUFC90]

Proof please?
This year Scotland wasn't anywhere near one of the top performing regions and I doubt that it has been in any of the years since 2012 - infact I'll go further - probably since 2008. 
 

Well as usual, you don't have a scooby what you're talking about. It was 3rd at time of last referendum (2014). Now it's magically a basket case.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Never mind the proof - here's the proof from the ONS website. 4th overall since 2000 per population share. Another Nationalist lie debunked! 

The problem with these sorts of figures is that they allocate in some cases incomes to those regions that should not be allocated there.

 

A lot of income is naturally in London and the South East because many UK companies register their businesses there.

 

They do it elsewhere as well - just look at the £100m a head that Barclay's earns in Luxembourg - it's utter fantasy. It doesn't show where the income is earned only where itbis registered.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/30/barclays-bank-profits-luxembourg-14-staff

 

As Richard Murphy puts it:

 

"It is showing that London syphons of money from the rest of the country.

 

How does it do that? Try this list:

 

* Most interest is paid to London

* Most profits are recorded in London

* Most leasing is recorded in London

* That may be true of rents as well

* Credit card fees and bank charges will largely be recorded in London

* So too will insurance

 

And all that means there is a lot of profit in London that is not anywhere else.

 

Then add this:

 

* Most bosses are in London as are most high paid employees in most companies and so are most oligarchs

* Most wealth is in the south-east, and so are those who charge high fees to service it.

 

So incomes are high in London, but actually, the rest of the country supports that by actually doing the work that is needed, at much lower income, to keep the country going.

 

Then note that:

 

* Rents are higher in London, and so is tax paid on it as are all the service fees for that"

 

And don't start me the allocation of UK expenditure (or rather South East of England expenditure) to Scotland as we benefit on a pro rata basis and as if such expenditure would continue posts independence - it wouldn't.

 

 

 

[Malky3]

11 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The problem with these sorts of figures is that they allocate in some cases incomes to those regions that should not be allocated there.

A lot of income is naturally in London and the South East because many UK companies register their businesses there.

They do it elsewhere as well - just look at the £100m a head that Barclay's earns in Luxembourg - it's utter fantasy.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/30/barclays-bank-profits-luxembourg-14-staff

There is no problem with these figures. The statisticians and financial analysts who compile the figures for the ONS and for the GERs Report are without doubt more qualified to do so than you and me. 

I've no problem with your argument that a head office being based in London means they pay their taxes there, but as I've asked before what difference would Scottish Independence make to that? RBS has already stated that it would have to leave Scotland for London if there was Scottish Independence because an Independent Scotland couldn't afford to refinance the bank if it hit trouble like it did in 2008. I don't think we would be likely to see all these Head Offices suddenly decide to relocate to Scotland - especially not when the new Independent country would be likely to have to raise taxes to cover a £13Bn fiscal hole. 

As for Luxemburg, you do know they have some of the lowest tax rates in Europe. VAT is the lowest in the EU. Corporate Tax rates are lower than those in the UK. 

In Scotland, the SNP have ensured that Scots have the highest tax rate in the UK! 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Malky3

[MONKMAN]

5 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

I don't think we would be likely to see all these Head Offices suddenly decide to relocate to Scotland - especially not when the new Independent country would be likely to have to raise taxes to cover a £13Bn fiscal hole. 

There is no £13 Billion black hole you utter simpleton.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

There is no problem with these figures. The statisticians and financial analysts who compile the figures for the ONS and for the GERs Report are without doubt more qualified to do so than you and me. 
I've no problem with your argument that a head office being based in London means they pay their taxes there, but as I've asked before what difference would Scottish Independence make to that? RBS has already stated that it would have to leave Scotland for London if there was Scottish Independence because an Independent Scotland couldn't afford to refinance the bank if it hit trouble like it did in 2008. I don't think we would be likely to see all these Head Offices suddenly decide to relocate to Scotland - especially not when the new Independent country would be likely to have to raise taxes to cover a £13Bn fiscal hole. 
As for Luxemburg, you do know they have some of the lowest tax rates in Europe. VAT is the lowest in the EU. Corporate Tax rates are lower than those in the UK. 
In Scotland, the SNP have ensured that Scots have the highest tax rate in the UK! 
 
 

The point is the income is earned elsewhere - the reality is that London and the South East syphon off income from the rest of the UK and then like a bloated cuckoo also gobble up a lot of the expenditure as well.

[Malky3]

1 minute ago, MONKMAN said:

There is no £13 Billion black hole you utter simpleton.

Oh dear - yes there is. I've provided the evidence. We get £13Bn per annum more from the Barnett Formula to spend in Scotland, than we raise in revenue. That's an absolute fact as confirmed it the NUTS1 report from the ONS and the GERs Report compiled by the Scottish Government's statisticians and financial analysts. It's also been confirmed as being an accurate picture of Scottish finances currently by Derek MacKay - The Scottish Finance Secretary. 

I'd love to hear what your credentials are, and what access to finances you've been given to make your claims more authoritative than theirs. 

 

[Malky3]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

10 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

There is no problem with these figures. The statisticians and financial analysts who compile the figures for the ONS and for the GERs Report are without doubt more qualified to do so than you and me. 
I've no problem with your argument that a head office being based in London means they pay their taxes there, but as I've asked before what difference would Scottish Independence make to that? RBS has already stated that it would have to leave Scotland for London if there was Scottish Independence because an Independent Scotland couldn't afford to refinance the bank if it hit trouble like it did in 2008. I don't think we would be likely to see all these Head Offices suddenly decide to relocate to Scotland - especially not when the new Independent country would be likely to have to raise taxes to cover a £13Bn fiscal hole. 
As for Luxemburg, you do know they have some of the lowest tax rates in Europe. VAT is the lowest in the EU. Corporate Tax rates are lower than those in the UK. 
In Scotland, the SNP have ensured that Scots have the highest tax rate in the UK! 
 
 

The point is the income is earned elsewhere - the reality is that London and the South East syphon off income from the rest of the UK and then like a bloated cuckoo also gobble up a lot of the expenditure as well.

For every penny spent in England, the Scottish Government is given extra through the Barnett Formula consequentials. That's fact. 

I'm not going to debate the fact that money flows to HQ's - Starbucks used that to avoid paying tax in the UK for years. Many multi-national companies move their business HQ's to the lowest tax regimes for exactly that reason. If an Independent Scotland was scrapping tax then I'm sure these HQ's would all move here but as I've pointed out the SNP's only move with taxation so far was to increase it making Scots the most taxed people in the UK! 

[Colkitto]

 

[Malky3]

2 minutes ago, Colkitto said:

 

Is that a wife swapping party? 

[jimmy boo]

This thread has to be the worst cesspit in the whole of P&B. That I've seen anyway.

[MONKMAN]

4 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

Oh dear - yes there is. I've provided the evidence. We get £13Bn per annum more from the Barnett Formula to spend in Scotland, than we raise in revenue. That's an absolute fact as confirmed it the NUTS1 report from the ONS and the GERs Report compiled by the Scottish Government's statisticians and financial analysts. It's also been confirmed as being an accurate picture of Scottish finances currently by Derek MacKay - The Scottish Finance Secretary. 

I'd love to hear what your credentials are, and what access to finances you've been given to make your claims more authoritative than theirs. 

 

My credentials are that I can read, something which clearly troubles yourself.  Scotland does not receive £13 Billion more than we raise in revenue. We receive £33 Billion to spend, significantly less than the £60 Billion we send to Westminster.  At which point, the UK Government tells us that it spends another £40 odd Billion on our behalf, which we've no control over, or have no detailed breakdown as to what it's spent on.  These are facts.  Show me where that means an independent Scotland would run with a fiscal deficit of £13 Billion?

[Malky3]

5 minutes ago, MONKMAN said:

My credentials are that I can read, something which clearly troubles yourself.  Scotland does not receive £13 Billion more than we raise in revenue. We receive £33 Billion to spend, significantly less than the £60 Billion we send to Westminster.  At which point, the UK Government tells us that it spends another £40 odd Billion on our behalf, which we've no control over, or have no detailed breakdown as to what it's spent on.  These are facts.  Show me where that means an independent Scotland would run with a fiscal deficit of £13 Billion?

Oh this is fun. 

Do you think an Independent Scotland would get volunteers to collect it's taxes for it? Perhaps you think charity workers will dole out pension and benefit payments. Perhaps Scotland will run a free defence force, using donated weapons from Scottish gangsters to defend our shores. Maybe with all the free time they have those marchers that block up our streets will be able to man our airports. And we won't bother with intelligence cause no-one in Scotland is that clever anyway. 

Perhaps if you stop reading comics like The National and Wings over Scotland you might stand a fighting chance.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Malky3

[MONKMAN]

Oh this is fun. 
Do you think an Independent Scotland would get volunteers to collect it's taxes for it? Perhaps you think charity workers will dole out pension and benefit payments. Perhaps Scotland will run a free defence force, using donated weapons from Scottish gangsters to defend our shores. Maybe with all the free time they have those marchers that block up our streets will be able to man our airports. And we won't bother with intelligence cause no-one in Scotland is that clever anyway. 
Perhaps if you stop reading comics like The National and Wings over Scotland you might stand a fighting chance.

Of course not you dribbling moron. Anyone with half a brain would think twice about trusting a Westminster government sitting on £2 Trillion of debt, to manage our finances.

Also, I’ve never read The National or Wings.

[DublinMagyar]

Malky has ruined my enjoyment of the politics thread

What's the fucking point?

13Billion

[Mark Connolly]

14 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

Malky has ruined my enjoyment of the politics thread

What's the fucking point?

13Billion

I'm intrigued by the fact he has never said there is a deficit, but that there is still a black hole

[git-intae-thum]

5 hours ago, Malky3 said:

Cause its nonsense. For every penny spent in England the Scottish Government recieves more in consequentials through the Barnett Formula. If your argument is that English local authorities are spending their money more wisely to attract investment -the SNP have paid huge subsidies to Amazon - you won't get much argument from me. 

Scotland gets its share back in consequentials through the Barnett formula. That's all right then eh.....

......eh no.

It's only all right if you are a thick unionist, with a foundation grasp of macroeconomics and public sector accounting.

What you are completely missing with your slightly less than Nat 4 level of comprehension is that when most of what is apportioned as national level spend is concentrated in a particular region(s) ie London and the South East..... as it is.......the rest of the regions receiving a proportionate  contribution share back does not really cut the mustard.

The huge concentration of spend from the regions classed as national spend, but spent primarily in one area of the country creates growth in that one region, as the economy grows to service that spend . The effect multiplies. As does the tax take.

Hence London and the South East appear to outperform the rest....and always will appear to do so under the current setup.

If the central belt of Scotland received the bulk of UK national spend and London, the SE and all the other regions received there proportionate share back...the central belt of Scotland would grow....its economy would multiply. In time ger figures would show it as generating the bulk of the UK's wealth,  and using it to offset the deficits of London and the other regions.

It's a con....there is no 13 billion black hole.......but this has already been explained to you several times. Hasn't it.

 

[AUFC90]

Oh this is fun. 
Do you think an Independent Scotland would get volunteers to collect it's taxes for it? Perhaps you think charity workers will dole out pension and benefit payments. Perhaps Scotland will run a free defence force, using donated weapons from Scottish gangsters to defend our shores. Maybe with all the free time they have those marchers that block up our streets will be able to man our airports. And we won't bother with intelligence cause no-one in Scotland is that clever anyway. 
Perhaps if you stop reading comics like The National and Wings over Scotland you might stand a fighting chance.

A country will have to spend money on things shocker.

You've went from talking about immediately plugging an imaginary year on year structural deficit to asking about who'll pay the bills.

YOU ARE A MORON

[AUFC90]

There isn't a single country in the world, similar to Scotland, with a GDP per capita of less than £40,000. The ones with the most similarites tend to be much richer and more successful than the UK with the added bonus of not being ran by a bunch of Oxbridge Tory c***s.

 

It's not a question of if we would be more successful than the UK over the next 40 years it would just be a question of by how much.

 

 

[AUFC90]

Isn't it funny how the word "retarded" used in the context of talking about how stupid an argument is - can get you a warning. But the abusive use of the "Moron" clearly doesn't. I wonder if the moderators on this site are perhaps slightly biased? 
It would be nice to see a more even hand being applied.....

You are a moron though.

[Malky3]

50 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Scotland gets its share back in consequentials through the Barnett formula. That's all right then eh.....

......eh no.

It's only all right if you are a thick unionist, with a foundation grasp of macroeconomics and public sector accounting.

What you are completely missing with your slightly less than Nat 4 level of comprehension is that when most of what is apportioned as national level spend is concentrated in a particular region(s) ie London and the South East..... as it is.......the rest of the regions receiving a proportionate  contribution share back does not really cut the mustard.

The huge concentration of spend from the regions classed as national spend, but spent primarily in one area of the country creates growth in that one region, as the economy grows to service that spend . The effect multiplies. As does the tax take.

Hence London and the South East appear to outperform the rest....and always will appear to do so under the current setup.

If the central belt of Scotland received the bulk of UK national spend and London, the SE and all the other regions received there proportionate share back...the central belt of Scotland would grow....its economy would multiply. In time ger figures would show it as generating the bulk of the UK's wealth,  and using it to offset the deficits of London and the other regions.

It's a con....there is no 13 billion black hole.......but this has already been explained to you several times. Hasn't it.

 

It certainly hasn't. What has happened on this site is that nationalists have shouted "13Bn" back at me over and over again. Some, failing to grasp where the GERs Report came from claimed it was a Westminster lie. Others have refused to read the Fraser and Allander Report that confirms that Scotland spends £13Bn more than it raises in revenue. Most seem to think that SNP and Scottish Government Finance Secretary Derek McKay doesn't have a grasp on the figures when he confirmed the GERs Report was an accurate statement on Scotlands current fiscal position. And then there are others - like you here - who claim that the gap between what Scotland spends and what it raises is justified cause "all the money" is spent in London and the South East - which it clearly isn't. Infact that figures prove that London, the South East and the East Of England spent considerably less than it raised in revenue - subsiding the other regions in the UK. The very thing that Nationalist incorrectly claim has happened with "Scottish money" for the last 20 years.