Reform UK going from strength to strength.

[Freedom Farter]

20 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Reform candidate in Orkney and Shetland got his finger on the pulse of local issues.

My mum and dad were in Shetland a few weeks back, will check with them if there are “transexuals everywhere”.

"The corporations have to comply in order to access finance".

He's on the side of the little guy, the corporations. 

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

That pesky IFS again: Here they are, speaking this time on June 22nd, about not being able to make projections beyond March 2025:

We have already discussed the fact that the lack of department-by-department plans after this year means that we are uncertain about the path of spending on particular public services, and that we are unable to evaluate the 'cost' of committing to a given path of spending

We do not know how total spending will be allocated between public services after next March, and, with a few exceptions, neither manifesto offered much light.

https://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1719049537523141900/uk-party-manifestos-suggest-cuts-likely-in-next-government---ifs.aspx

For f*cks sake Jedi, you can't say that the IFS spokesman said "that these figures are based on a one year projection not the 5 year term". in a radio interview (which he didn't) then link to something that the IFS said 6 days later in a newspaper as proof of what was said in that interview.

That's fundimentally dishonest.

How about the next time you try to make a point, you link to the place that the person quoted actually said these words?

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

I know that an extra 2 minutes of the Radio Scotland interview was 'too long' for you to listen to, but still no acknowledgement, weeks later, of the IFS estimate of a decade of public sector cuts under the SNP's plans.

No?

Look at my quote in the Latest Polls thread at 22:46 on 22/06/2024

Your original post talked about a decade of austerity. I've set out some cuts I would make, pointed out that the finances of iScotland will depend on the settlement & said that I'm happy to look at the long -term advantage of never electing a tory government again as sufficient justification for any potential additional costs. What more do you expect me to say?

I consider that to be a pretty comprehensive reply. You're not getting anything more. I'll look forward to your apology.

[Jedi2]

2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

For f*cks sake Jedi, you can't say that the IFS spokesman said "that these figures are based on a one year projection not the 5 year term". in a radio interview (which he didn't) then link to something that the IFS said 6 days later in a newspaper as proof of what was said in that interview.

That's fundimentally dishonest.

How about the next time you try to make a point, you link to the place that the person quoted actually said these words?

No?

Look at my quote in the Latest Polls thread at 22:46 on 22/06/2024

Your original post talked about a decade of austerity. I've set out some cuts I would make, pointed out that the finances of iScotland will depend on the settlement & said that I'm happy to look at the long -term advantage of never electing a tory government again as sufficient justification for any potential additional costs. What more do you expect me to say?

I consider that to be a pretty comprehensive reply. You're not getting anything more. I'll look forward to your apology.

Apology? For your condescending arrogance and constant 'intellectual superiority',continual inference of my uneducated numbskullness and your colossal intellectual capacity by comparison.

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, Jedi2 said:

Apology? For your condescending arrogance and constant 'intellectual superiority',continual inference of my uneducated numbskullness and your colossal intellectual capacity by comparison.

^^^ Not bothered at all ^^^

Nothing to say about being caught in more lies though.

[SandyCromarty]

47 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

You mean like when Shell (profit £22 billion) BP (profit £14 billion) and others, fled the UK when Jeremy Hunt slapped a 35% Windfall Tax (an increase of 10% from the previous year),on their profits in January 2023..think they are still here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177.amp

Or the whole 5% of kids who go to Private Schools will mostly be leaving? Don't think so. Rather think that they will be more than able to afford an 'increase'. After all, fees of between £20-30K a year already aren't an issue.

Meanwhile it's fine and dandy to slap tax hikes on 'high' earners (by the SNP's definition) on £28,000 a year, but not oil and gas companies, private schools, or property developers.

It's interesting that you mention 'disappearing' for 'ten years or so', a decade in other words, that the SNP plan to use to 'disappear' even moderate functioning of public services in Scotland for.....but its all worth it in the 'long term'. How long it would take to rebuild those public services is anyone's guess.

 

BP and Shells UK income amounts to 10% and 5% respectively against their global income, this is a massive reduction to where it was some years back, so the move to a less taxing locations would not have a serious impact on their operations.

Then you have smaller outfits such as Neptune and Apache who have substantial overseas investment but not in the same ball park as the majors, squeezing the likes of hem would see an exodus.

The pupil figure for UK privately educated pupils is 4% but in Edinburgh that figure is over 25%, even a 5% move by pupils there would see a massive financial cost to Lothian Councils.

Yes the SNP tax 'high earners' in Scotland and rightly so but it is not outrageous and like the rest of us they can access legal tax breaks, there has been no major hue and cry from those high earners nor a massive exodus to england.

The SNP are sympathetic towards North Sea investment and it would be political suicide to be otherwise as the opposite regard would result in thousand of job losses as will happen under Labour, if you live in the central built you will be totally unaware of the scale of the industry and bear in mind that the UK access to North Sea oil provides big big kudos to British Governments when dealing with other Major European non oil producing nations, to have oil on our doorstep has kept this countrys economy afloat for decades and the Labour party knows that and believe all the bullshit they are spouting about no more exploration licences being issued will soon be out the window when they gat in.

Finally as much as I see the need for trade unions and have a great regard for what they do they are the Labour Party's paymasters and they will call in the loans.

Been there.

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

VAT on school fees would see a massive pupil exodus from private to state schools and the increased cost to us the taxpayer.

 

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

Or the whole 5% of kids who go to Private Schools will mostly be leaving? Don't think so. Rather think that they will be more than able to afford an 'increase'. After all, fees of between £20-30K a year already aren't an issue.

Will Labour's VAT policy trigger an influx of pupils to Scotland's under-pressure state schools? (scotsman.com)

A key concern raised about Labour’s plans to end the VAT exemption on private school fees has been that it will add to pressure on state schools. This is mainly because it is claimed many parents will decide to enrol their children in local authority-run primaries and secondaries due to rising costs. Private schools estimate this could be the case for 6,000 pupils north of the border - a 20 per cent fall. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies believes the decline is likely to be of between only 3 per cent and 7 per cent, or 900 to 2,100 pupils in Scotland.

In theory, a significant increase in the pupil roll would only add to the existing strain in state schools, where staff are already struggling to cope with a staggering rise in the number of pupils with additional support needs, as well deteriorating behaviour. However, roll projections show primary pupil numbers in state schools peaked in 2017 at over 400,300 and are now falling by 1.7 per cent a year, while in secondary schools they will peak next year at 316,600 and then decline by 1.2 per cent annually.

There should, therefore, be capacity in the state system, although existing pressures would not be eased by an influx. Any impact would also vary by area. It is often claimed a quarter of school pupils in Edinburgh attend private schools and, while this is not accurate, the capital does have a significant proportion. Close to 54,000 pupils attended state schools in Edinburgh last year, while 9,310 pupils living in Edinburgh are estimated to attend private schools. However the next highest was Glasgow, where only 3,170 private school pupils are thought to live, followed by Aberdeen with 2,530 and Perth & Kinross with 2,240. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth & Kinross councils all confirmed to The Scotsman they have not yet seen any evidence of a rise in enrolments.

[Jedi2]

The average wage in Scotland is around £35,000.

Under the SNP's 6 bands these 'high earners' start at £26,562 (or around £8000 below an 'average' wage. Of course there is then the fiscal drag between £43662 and £43,663 which takes a lot of public sector workers (nurses, teachers, police, Social Workers etc) into the 'Higher' band...these are the people the Scottish govt are going after to up their tax revenue (worth around £1 billion more in the next year with the rates higher than rUK

So for all the 'we settled teachers/nurses/police etc pay disputes (eventually)..award these workers a rise then hit them with Higher tax, which kind of defeats the purpose of the pay rise and makes it smoke and mirrors.

On the Windfall Tax, the proposal is to increase it by around 3% at present (less of an increase than the Tories made in the last 2 years).

Ultimately I would still rather see oil and gas giants, Private School parents and property developers paying a bit more in tax, than an average public sector worker, as, in most considerations they are most able to afford it.

		20%
Intermediate	£26,562 - £43,662	21%
Higher	£43,663 - £75,000	42%
Advanced	£75,001 - £125,140*	45%
Top	Above £125,141

[Jedi2]

12 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

 

Will Labour's VAT policy trigger an influx of pupils to Scotland's under-pressure state schools? (scotsman.com)

A key concern raised about Labour’s plans to end the VAT exemption on private school fees has been that it will add to pressure on state schools. This is mainly because it is claimed many parents will decide to enrol their children in local authority-run primaries and secondaries due to rising costs. Private schools estimate this could be the case for 6,000 pupils north of the border - a 20 per cent fall. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies believes the decline is likely to be of between only 3 per cent and 7 per cent, or 900 to 2,100 pupils in Scotland.

In theory, a significant increase in the pupil roll would only add to the existing strain in state schools, where staff are already struggling to cope with a staggering rise in the number of pupils with additional support needs, as well deteriorating behaviour. However, roll projections show primary pupil numbers in state schools peaked in 2017 at over 400,300 and are now falling by 1.7 per cent a year, while in secondary schools they will peak next year at 316,600 and then decline by 1.2 per cent annually.

There should, therefore, be capacity in the state system, although existing pressures would not be eased by an influx. Any impact would also vary by area. It is often claimed a quarter of school pupils in Edinburgh attend private schools and, while this is not accurate, the capital does have a significant proportion. Close to 54,000 pupils attended state schools in Edinburgh last year, while 9,310 pupils living in Edinburgh are estimated to attend private schools. However the next highest was Glasgow, where only 3,170 private school pupils are thought to live, followed by Aberdeen with 2,530 and Perth & Kinross with 2,240. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth & Kinross councils all confirmed to The Scotsman they have not yet seen any evidence of a rise in enrolments.

So the conclusions leads to:

Taxing Private School parents more

Taxing Oil and Gas Giants more

Taxing Property Developers more

Trying to claw back non-dom.tax avoidance.....

All 'unfair' and 'unmanageable'

But....Taxing people earning £8000 less than an average wage and going after teachers, nurses, police and Social Workers with tax hikes is 'progressive' and where we should be clawing the money in from?

Certainly removes any doubt about the clear right-left wing gap in economic approach between Labour and the SNP.

If you want to protect private schools, large multinationals, large landowners, and bankers, the SNP is clearly on your side.

 

Edited Tuesday at 20:47 by Jedi2

[Granny Danger]

18 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

The average wage in Scotland is around £35,000.

Under the SNP's 6 bands these 'high earners' start at £26,562 (or around £8000 below an 'average' wage. Of course there is then the fiscal drag between £43662 and £43,663 which takes a lot of public sector workers (nurses, teachers, police, Social Workers etc) into the 'Higher' band...these are the people the Scottish govt are going after to up their tax revenue (worth around £1 billion more in the next year with the rates higher than rUK

So for all the 'we settled teachers/nurses/police etc pay disputes (eventually)..award these workers a rise then hit them with Higher tax, which kind of defeats the purpose of the pay rise and makes it smoke and mirrors.

On the Windfall Tax, the proposal is to increase it by around 3% at present (less of an increase than the Tories made in the last 2 years).

Ultimately I would still rather see oil and gas giants, Private School parents and property developers paying a bit more in tax, than an average public sector worker, as, in most considerations they are most able to afford it.

		20%
Intermediate	£26,562 - £43,662	21%
Higher	£43,663 - £75,000	42%
Advanced	£75,001 - £125,140*	45%
Top	Above £125,141

Is that the mean or median average?

[Jedi2]

10 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Is that the mean or median average?

Mean £35K

Median £28K

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

You know how people like Jedi are absolutely off putting to people and would put you off voting labour? You know that kind of behaviour seeps right through the labour party? Is it just me thats worried their complacency might actually lead to some kind of reform uk led government? We’re laughing it off like we did brexit, but there are enough crayon munchers in the English balance of power constituencies and enough sanctimonious labour cretins to make it an outside chance…?  

[Granny Danger]

4 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Mean £35K

Median £28K

And you realise within the context of the issue you’re discussing that the median figure is of far greater relevance than the mean figure?

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

Reform candidate in Orkney and Shetland got his finger on the pulse of local issues.

My mum and dad were in Shetland a few weeks back, will check with them if there are “transexuals everywhere”.

The Uppies and Doonies must be stopped from taking the knee during the annual game of Ba'

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

The average wage in Scotland is around £35,000.

Under the SNP's 6 bands these 'high earners' start at £26,562 (or around £8000 below an 'average' wage. Of course there is then the fiscal drag between £43662 and £43,663 which takes a lot of public sector workers (nurses, teachers, police, Social Workers etc) into the 'Higher' band...these are the people the Scottish govt are going after to up their tax revenue (worth around £1 billion more in the next year with the rates higher than rUK

So for all the 'we settled teachers/nurses/police etc pay disputes (eventually)..award these workers a rise then hit them with Higher tax, which kind of defeats the purpose of the pay rise and makes it smoke and mirrors.

On the Windfall Tax, the proposal is to increase it by around 3% at present (less of an increase than the Tories made in the last 2 years).

Ultimately I would still rather see oil and gas giants, Private School parents and property developers paying a bit more in tax, than an average public sector worker, as, in most considerations they are most able to afford it.

		20%
Intermediate	£26,562 - £43,662	21%
Higher	£43,663 - £75,000	42%
Advanced	£75,001 - £125,140*	45%
Top	Above £125,141

Misleading as ever, Jedi

 A worker on £26562 will pay less tax than someone on the same salary in rUK, because he will benefit from the 19% rate payable between £12,571 & £14,876.

The exact income tax payable in Scotland will be £2775, whilst in rUK, it will be £2798 - check here: link to calculator

The point where the Scottish/rUK tax takes are equal is on a salary of ~£28850 - slightly above the median Scottish earnings. In other words, 51% of Scottish raxpayers will pay less tax than their counterparts in England  - another link

In addition, your superficial analysis and your faux concern for public sector workers totally fails to take into account the fact that the pay scales in Scotland mean that public sector workers in Scotland tend to earn more than their equivalents in rUK (excluding London) . In fact, the median pay for a full-time public sector employee in Scotland was around £1,500 higher than in the UK in 2023. link

What would you prefer, Jedi? A public sector salary of £44,000 in Scotland or £42,500 in rUK (excluding London)?

One will get a take home pay of  £34,977. the other will take home £34,120 (figures do not include pension payments)

Guess who has the better pay packet at the end of each month?

Edited Tuesday at 21:43 by lichtgilphead
formatting

[carpetmonster]

29 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

You know how people like Jedi are absolutely off putting to people and would put you off voting labour? You know that kind of behaviour seeps right through the labour party? Is it just me thats worried their complacency might actually lead to some kind of reform uk led government? We’re laughing it off like we did brexit, but there are enough crayon munchers in the English balance of power constituencies and enough sanctimonious labour cretins to make it an outside chance…?  

Obvs not this time out but it’s a proper worry for 2029. Slightly more competently managed decline with zero substantive change plays right into the far right’s hands. 

[Jedi2]

Reckon Reform might win 2 or 3 seats (on a good day) for them on Thursday..even Farage will struggle to win his seat.

In 5 years time they will probably be called something else (again)..Brexit Party to Reform to..?

They will influence the Tories to move further to the right, but electorally will disappear as 'traditional' Tory voters return to them rather than whatever Farage's latest vanity project is

[Leith Green]

33 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

You know how people like Jedi are absolutely off putting to people and would put you off voting labour? You know that kind of behaviour seeps right through the labour party? Is it just me thats worried their complacency might actually lead to some kind of reform uk led government? We’re laughing it off like we did brexit, but there are enough crayon munchers in the English balance of power constituencies and enough sanctimonious labour cretins to make it an outside chance…?  

Yeah, not this time but after the pending Tory car crash, you can read the tea leaves for 5 years time.

It's already happening in France and Germany.

Quite concerning tbqhwy. Not so much for me, but my son is 18.

When I was his age, it was mid 80s, none of us had any real aspirations, just hope that things would improve - they did, for a while imo, but unfortunately greed and corporates took over and left this vacuum that the far right filled.

Worrying.

[Jedi2]

Unlike France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Hungary  the UK has never had actual Communists or Fascists (or at least far-left/far-right) elected to parliament in any numbers, and indeed has always avoided 'extremes'. Yes, Brexit was largely built on smears about Immigration, but it's a whole different matter actually electing far...(either side) to Parliament let alone govt.

Hence why Reform might win 2 or 3 seats this time (with maybe 14-15% of the vote or maybe less). Can't see how they go from there to potentially forming the next govt.

Howling at the moon about Immigration can only carry so far.

I genuinely think the majority of Tory voters (in England) care more about low taxes, not spending too much on public services, being able to keep 'most' of their money and Pensions, than they do about Immigration overall.

Edited Tuesday at 22:53 by Jedi2

[DeeTillEhDeh]

11 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Unlike France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Hungary  the UK has never had actual Communists or Fascists (or at least far-left/far-right) elected to parliament in any numbers, and indeed has always avoided 'extremes'. Yes, Brexit was largely built on smears about Immigration, but it's a whole different matter actually electing far...(either side) to Parliament let alone govt.

Hence why Reform might win 2 or 3 seats this time (with maybe 14-15% of the vote or maybe less). Can't see how they go from there to potentially forming the next govt.

Howling at the moon about Immigration can only carry so far.

I genuinely think the majority of Tory voters (in England) care more about low taxes, not spending too much on public services, being able to keep 'most' of their money and Pensions, than they do about Immigration overall.

It's not racist Tories but working class racists that's the real issue.

Edited Wednesday at 09:56 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Granny Danger]

Willie Gallacher was the last communist MP to be elected to the UK parliament.

His representation of the people of Fife drew the remark “Only two men of good intention ever went to Westminster, one was Willie Gallacher the other was Guy Fawkes”.