General Politics Thread

[Ad Lib]

Just now, renton said:

On what deficit reduction time scale, months, years, a decade? Based on what level of liabilities assumed by the new Scottish state? Do we need to get to the same relative fiscal position as the rUK? It seems unlikely that any new case for independence will include the currency union of the last one, so the whole thing becomes complicated by the interest rates set around a new Scottish currency I guess. How about Brexit? One of the big lags on the UK vs Scotland is in income tax take, is it not a real possibility then, that Brexit will cause a flight of capital and industry - particularly financial - to a Scotland in the EU, dramatically changing in a short few years the potential tax base of Scotland? Will not an independent Scotland with it's own immigration policy not have a similar effect? Does all this not show that trying to pin any case for independence to GERS figures is not a particulalry illuminating exercise, given that it reflects only the current devolution settlement in the UK, rather than projecting the possible options for an independent Scotland in the future?

If a future poll does not make a case for £9 billion in cuts/tax rises central to it's programme, will you not support it - will that over ride your pro-European sensibilities and commit yourself to Brexit UK?

1. Almost immediately, otherwise we will have a higher national debt and be worse off. We are talking 2-3 years at most to avoid substantial long-term hardship.

2. Either a population or GDP share, it makes very little difference

3. No, we need to get to a better fiscal position than the UK

4. With our own currency we are more, not less, likely to have to reduce our deficit aggressively, especially if we wanted to be in the EU

5. Brexit is a red herring here. If Brexit is hard an independent Scotland in the EU would be obliged to impose tariffs and other trade barriers on rUK goods. This would exceed by several orders of magnitude the projected losses of revenue and growth brought about by Brexit and staying in the UK, if anything necessitating tougher fiscal policy.

6. Any capital flight to Scotland is completely and utterly speculative. The last thing the London financial sector is going to do is move to Edinburgh, with a 3rd currency, rather than Frankfurt or Paris without some pretty substantial undertakings.

7. Having our own immigration policy won't make a substantial difference to our GDP or our tax revenue in the medium-term.

8. No one is suggesting that a case for independence should be "pinned" on GERS, but it's reasonable to expect those advocating independence to propose, explain and most importantly quantify the factors that they think will influence the economic performance of an independent Scotland, such as to demonstrate at the very least that the predicament won't be as bad for Scotland as GERS provisionally projects, and in terms of the merits compared to the Union to show that it at least won't differ substantially from the UK performance as outlined in GERS.

9. I don't know. I need to see the tenor of the Brexit deal first and what the knock-on effects are for Scotland's interests, fiscal, democratic and political.

[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.