General Politics Thread

[Ad Lib]

23 minutes ago, renton said:

Not so much Trident, but there is certainly a defence overspend in Scotland with respect ot the actual units raised and stationed here, in otherwords a potential dividend of between £1.5 to £2 billion without really doing anything, not obviously anywhere close to closing the deficit, but certainly a low hanging fruit.

Any estimates on how much we pay into UK capital and non devolved spending, Crossrail, HS2 and the like, and how much we'd save via divorce?

1. If you mean we spend more on defence than we need to, fine, but as I pointed out ages ago we could literally abolish the military and the GERS figures wouldn't look significantly better. It attributes a notional circa £3 billion spend on the Scottish military, which represents about a quarter of the current fiscal deficit, about a fifth of the net deficit and about a third of the amount by which we are subsidised.

2. GERS does not include CrossRail as Scottish public spending. You are confusing Barnett with GERS. They adopt completely different methodologies and do different things.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Ad Lib
To add point 2

[Ad Lib]

7 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

They made it quite clear in parliament that they have no fucking idea how much it will cost. Thanks for the typically lengthy and incongruous reply tho.

No this is nonsense.

Even if you take the CND estimate for the cost of the Trident renewal, programme and decommissioning for the next 40 years, Scotland's contribution towards it would not vary by more than about £50-100 million a year. It's chicken feed set against the fiscal gap we are talking about. Absolute chicken feed.

[williemillersmoustache]

So May wasn't asked 3 times in parliament how much will this cost, and didn't answer? Interesting.

[Ad Lib]

So May wasn't asked 3 times in parliament how much will this cost, and didn't answer? Interesting.

Whether the cost is disputed isn't the issue. The question is whether the magnitude of the dispute makes it relevant to the context in which you are raising it.

Asking "how much did Trident cost" in the context of Scotland's GERS figures is like saying "ah but how much does a Mars bar cost" in the context of a month's supermarket shop for a family of four. It could be 60p, it could be 80p, but it doesn't really have any real impact on the underlying spend, does it?

[renton]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

1. If you mean we spend more on defence than we need to, fine, but as I pointed out ages ago we could literally abolish the military and the GERS figures wouldn't look significantly better. It attributes a notional circa £3 billion spend on the Scottish military, which represents about a quarter of the current fiscal deficit, about a fifth of the net deficit and about a third of the amount by which we are subsidised.

Well, you want £9 billion in cuts/tax rises, and there is £2 billion in defence. Down to £7 billion already.  How about the rest of UK non devolved capital spending, how much would we save by not paying for those? Another billion maybe two? Down to £5-6 billion now. How about the tax system? simplify it and crack down on avoidance (I know that's something you'd detest, but anyway). HMRC reckons £30 billion, UK wide so call it £2.61 billion - unrealistic, let's say we save even 50% of that, so £1.3 billion, and we're down to £3.7 to 4.7 billion. How about the non direct, weath taxes? An LVT would raise something like £2-£3 billion a year according to those who proclaim to be experts in it, now your deficit range is £0.7 billion to £2.7 billion, can we raise corporation tax? change CGT? Further optimise the income tax base? Those measures could raise another £1 billion, based on the varying manifestos from before the last election. How about pension liabilities? One good thing about Scotland's diet, you'd save a tonne on pensions. That's before you get to the few 'good' years of rising oil prices which will contribute.

That's all before we get into the realm of exactly how much debt we'd have to pay off, which would depend on negotiations, and for which I imagine we could get some leniancy from the rUK for services rendered, for example, Trident basing.

Yes, the nubmers are off the cuff, I am being flippant before you get into another ten paragraph reply - but there are definitely low hanging fruit in terms of UK spending that we'd save on overnight, as well as other measures we could put in place in terms of progressive taxation that would protect the majority of front line spending in the short term. Trying to maximise revenue, from immigration, taking advantage of Brexit and raising productivity are all medium term solutions.

 

I get that GERS is imposing, but the simple truth is that it's never going to look better, short of another oil boom. UK tax and spend policies will always act to protect the prosperity of London and the South east, at the cost of outlying regions like us. Devolution has reached it's limits outside of a radical shakeup of the Westminster system, which will never happen. It looks very much to me like a case of indpeendnece soon, or managed decline forever after.

[williemillersmoustache]

A simple yes would have sufficed. 

In AdLibLand 80p = 60p = ∞

[Ad Lib]

Well, you want £9 billion in cuts/tax rises, and there is £2 billion in defence. Down to £7 billion already.  How about the rest of UK non devolved capital spending, how much would we save by not paying for those? Another billion maybe two? Down to £5-6 billion now. How about the tax system? simplify it and crack down on avoidance (I know that's something you'd detest, but anyway). HMRC reckons £30 billion, UK wide so call it £2.61 billion - unrealistic, let's say we save even 50% of that, so £1.3 billion, and we're down to £3.7 to 4.7 billion. How about the non direct, weath taxes? An LVT would raise something like £2-£3 billion a year according to those who proclaim to be experts in it, now your deficit range is £0.7 billion to £2.7 billion, can we raise corporation tax? change CGT? Further optimise the income tax base? Those measures could raise another £1 billion, based on the varying manifestos from before the last election. How about pension liabilities? One good thing about Scotland's diet, you'd save a tonne on pensions. That's before you get to the few 'good' years of rising oil prices which will contribute.

That's all before we get into the realm of exactly how much debt we'd have to pay off, which would depend on negotiations, and for which I imagine we could get some leniancy from the rUK for services rendered, for example, Trident basing.

Yes, the nubmers are off the cuff, I am being flippant before you get into another ten paragraph reply - but there are definitely low hanging fruit in terms of UK spending that we'd save on overnight, as well as other measures we could put in place in terms of progressive taxation that would protect the majority of front line spending in the short term. Trying to maximise revenue, from immigration, taking advantage of Brexit and raising productivity are all medium term solutions.

 

I get that GERS is imposing, but the simple truth is that it's never going to look better, short of another oil boom. UK tax and spend policies will always act to protect the prosperity of London and the South east, at the cost of outlying regions like us. Devolution has reached it's limits outside of a radical shakeup of the Westminster system, which will never happen. It looks very much to me like a case of indpeendnece soon, or managed decline forever after.

Honestly this is basic stuff. Capital spending is already accounted for in GERS. That's what the net fiscal balance represents as compared to the current fiscal balance. There is no money magically to save there.

It is hopelessly unrealistic to suggest that tax simplification or anti-avoidance law changes will materially increase Scotland's revenue. If anything the costs of running a separate revenue collection agency would increase. Look at how massively over budget Revenue Scotland was, and it was just dealing with land transaction taxes!

Can we raise corporation tax? Sure, if you want to lose revenue and see capital flight.

Land Value Tax would replace other taxes. There is not strong evidence it would substantially alter revenue streams, whatever its other merits.

Pension liabilities don't make a big difference. Scotland's demography is fairly similar to the UK's as a whole in that regard.

The point is we have to savagely cut to make an independent Scotland credible. We are talking across the board departmental cuts of 10-20% to get on an even keel. We cannot bet on another oil boom.

[capybara]

Im sure everyone apart from yourself understood what i meant there but knock yourself out with a 5 paragraph reply

If ab fab is here time to go for a long long walk.

[Ziggy]

Ad Lib's posts are the best in the politics forum. That doesn't mean I agree with him but they are intelligent and well argued. 

(unpopular opinions thread for this??)

[Ad Lib]

 

16 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

Ad Lib's posts are the best in the politics forum. That doesn't mean I agree with him but they are intelligent and well argued. 

(unpopular opinions thread for this??)

Outed yourself as a hateful liberal reason-monger there.

[Granny Danger]

17 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

 

Outed yourself as a fucking zoomer.

FTFY.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

11 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

FTFY.

Whereas you just need a zimmer.

Edited August 24, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Whereas you just need a zimmer.

That's hurtful.  And inaccurate (to date).

[North Terrace Gazza]

2 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

 

Honestly this is basic stuff. Capital spending is already accounted for in GERS. That's what the net fiscal balance represents as compared to the current fiscal balance. There is no money magically to save there.

It is hopelessly unrealistic to suggest that tax simplification or anti-avoidance law changes will materially increase Scotland's revenue. If anything the costs of running a separate revenue collection agency would increase. Look at how massively over budget Revenue Scotland was, and it was just dealing with land transaction taxes!

Can we raise corporation tax? Sure, if you want to lose revenue and see capital flight.

Land Value Tax would replace other taxes. There is not strong evidence it would substantially alter revenue streams, whatever its other merits.

Pension liabilities don't make a big difference. Scotland's demography is fairly similar to the UK's as a whole in that regard.

The point is we have to savagely cut to make an independent Scotland credible. We are talking across the board departmental cuts of 10-20% to get on an even keel. We cannot bet on another oil boom.

 

Some common sense on the politics forum for a change well said sir.

[WaffenThinMint]

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

Ad Lib's posts are the best in the politics forum. That doesn't mean I agree with him but they are intelligent and well argued. 

(unpopular opinions thread for this??)

Yes, well, Deepest Darkest Ayrshire always had been strong supporters of the "abolish the incest laws" candidate at election time.

[doulikefish]

Ruk should cut such a basket case of a country loose

People wanted out of Europe for the same reasons

[dogmc]

Ruk should cut such a basket case of a country loose


People wanted out of Europe for the same reasons

Indeed we are a terrible drain on their resources.....Ireland must be delighted it doesn't have an oil industry or whisky exports like us. They'd never be able to survive away from Westminster....

[Fide]

Does anyone else just gaily skip over Ad Lib's posts now?

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, dogmc said:

Indeed we are a terrible drain on their resources.....Ireland must be delighted it doesn't have an oil industry or whisky exports like us. They'd never be able to survive away from Westminster....

Ireland spends c35% of its GDP on public expenditure. Scotland spends 44%.

Ireland generates c30% of its GDP in tax revenue. Scotland generates 35% of its GDP in tax revenue.

Ireland's deficit is 2.1% of its GDP. Scotland's deficit is 9.5% of its GDP.

If you think Scotland's solution is to cut public spending by £14 billion in order to cut taxes by £9 billion, I'm sure the Scottish Conservatives would love to have you on board.

[renton]

3 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

 

Honestly this is basic stuff. Capital spending is already accounted for in GERS. That's what the net fiscal balance represents as compared to the current fiscal balance. There is no money magically to save there.

It is hopelessly unrealistic to suggest that tax simplification or anti-avoidance law changes will materially increase Scotland's revenue. If anything the costs of running a separate revenue collection agency would increase. Look at how massively over budget Revenue Scotland was, and it was just dealing with land transaction taxes!

Can we raise corporation tax? Sure, if you want to lose revenue and see capital flight.

Land Value Tax would replace other taxes. There is not strong evidence it would substantially alter revenue streams, whatever its other merits.

Pension liabilities don't make a big difference. Scotland's demography is fairly similar to the UK's as a whole in that regard.

The point is we have to savagely cut to make an independent Scotland credible. We are talking across the board departmental cuts of 10-20% to get on an even keel. We cannot bet on another oil boom.

 

In terms of Income Tax, Corporation Tax and CGT Scotland lagged behind the UK average by something like 2.8 Billion, 1.2 Billion of that in income tax due to the differences in demographics between Scotland and the South East. Correcting that, by a more progressive tax regime, or by the application of the Living Wage across the private and public sectors would not only correct that particular imbalance but would raise money paid from NI as well. LVT would significantly alter revenue streams, even if it replacing some other local taxes, because unlike the CT it's a properly progressive tax (hell, even enacting CT with properly updated bands would generate significantly more revenue) and would allow us to raise revenue on land uses not currently taxed, it'd also encourage raised productivity in the use of land, a behavioural change which in turn could help push other direct tax takes up. The current CT revenue is something like 3 billion, an LVT in Scotland could raise as much as 12 billion, representing a significant dent in the standard GERS black hole by itself. The 2 billion defence overspend is already discussed. In short there is some easy expenditure cuts that wouldn't affect frontline public services and some more radical, progressive revisions to the existing tax system that would also raise significant revenues. As for pensions, the Scottish average is a few years below that of the UK, which is not insignificant in terms of pension liabilities but also there is the option for an independent Scotland to raise the retirement age above what the UK currently does (a pressure all Western nations will eventually feel) which would decrease one of the largest outlays in the welfare system. In work benefits is another, something that could be combatted by a more progressive tax system, and a commitment to higher wages, rather than the state constantly subsidising the private sector's bottom line.

The level of debt we would take finally, is up for negotiation, but per GDP or population share, while being fair, is not necessarily the best deal we could get.

The effect of Brexit is unknown at the moment, but a Scotland in the EU, with the rUK out would - assuming no trade war caused by hard Brexit - have the opportunity to significantly raise revenue from companies relocating north. 

GERS is, and only ever will be an estimation of how current UK policy affects Scotland. It says precisely nothing about an independent Scotland, and the choices it would be able or willing to make.