Murray Ross in 'slavering out loud' shock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Printable View
Murray Ross in 'slavering out loud' shock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
It wouldn't be in the top 20. Maybe make the top 3 in Glasgow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Presumably the planet where it's a "union of equals", "family of nations", etc. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Chances of it being in Cardiff absolutely zero too, btw.
Although even if it were a UoE, nobody in their right mind would choose Hampden anyway, because it's small and crap.
Is there a 'English Independence Party'?
Perhaps someone should start one...you know since Scotland is such a drain on England's finances. :wink:
https://twitter.com/englishindpartyQuote:
Originally Posted by Dazzling Doidge
Opinium Y51 N49
After the brief flurry of polls with No in the lead, Yes has definitely retaken it, albeit it's small margins.
If you look at recent polls and include the Don't Knows, No support didn't increase when they had the lead. There was a bit of Y-DK that has gone back to Y.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...19b2727d2a.jpg
Unionists now advocating partitioning Scotland like they did Ireland.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Aye I mind when Galloway said Scotland should be able to remain in the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That was always going to be on the cards. Look what happened within the former Yugoslavia. Who knows how extremist Unionists will react to being separated from what they see as their government and country. The potential for unrest is very real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It’s not a bad idea really. We could ‘Do a Crimea’ and annexe Fife. That should please Salmond and his 2% anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
This is just a repetition of something similar from the last referendum, where Project Fear kept putting out stories of the Shetland Islands right... and desire... to remain in the UK in the event of Scottish Independence.
The biggest problem with that was that there had been a couple of Polls taken in Shetland that showed overwhelming support for remaining a part of Scotland (as they have been for over 500 years).
Is that hat glued to his head?
From a man who was a huge advocate for Irish unification. Although that may not be paying as well these days as his current paymasters. Fud of a manQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He's now a man who is a huge advocate of causing arguments in empty houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
The sound of his own voice is the most important thing in his life.
Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk
I just can't help thinking he's poor old Penelope Pitstops nemesis The Hooded Claw.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...7e3588ae0e.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Fezziwig
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...mpression=true
Hard to know where to start?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can only assume the boy drank the full bottle before writing that horse****.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Dangerous stuff when the Spectator is openly contemplating Sturgeon’s death.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's awful! I only scanned it and read 2-3 sentences - that was enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
They are also carrying a whingeathon from English nationalist Simon Heffer that refers to the “Maoist SNP”. Actual LOLZ. :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That article is a disgrace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I accept and respect that some people may have reservations about independence, that some people might not not really rate us and that some folk might reasonably ultimately come to a different conclusion re independence.
For anyone to carry around that amount of self-loathing however is just frightening.
Utter garbage which, of course, the English nationalist audience would lap up.
Virulent nationalism indeed.
It would be hard to find more ultimate self loathing cringe than that, hoepfully a part of the unioinist mindset that we lose upon independence that currently holds us back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Didn't really find that any worse than most/all the other Spectator articles on Scotland you've linked to recently. I get that it's sound practice to listen to all sides, however fanciful, but the Spectator has just been relentlessly pumping out nonsense about Scotland. Best ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I'm not up on far flung dictatorships from history. Is that worse than, or not as bad as, the previous "Stalinist" description? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I lost count of the amount of times I cringed whilst reading that. Problem is that that sort of thing gets lapped up by some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If anyone can wade through to end there is a wee explanation on how Thatcher was good for Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
On another planet this guy.
Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk
I’ve read a fair few spectator articles linked to this site. That one is by far and away the worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
The most out of touch, patronising, sanctimonious ***** I think I’ve ever read on the subject of independence.
Talk about reading the room: shall we start off with a £90 bottle of whisky?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...ad591117e4.jpg
All about priorities I suppose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s all good, think of the Barnett consequential; we might be able to fund a spliff for all Scots on Fridays at 4:20Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Unfortunately because of all the benefits Scotland will get from the big boat, there won’t be any Barnett consequentials.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Yay big boat 🙄
Let's hope he doesn't use the same consultants he employed for the London garden Bridge for this vanity project or the royals will be rowing their own dinghy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
I thought it was a good read :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Quelle surprise!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchie
Lol. Yep, that's just the sort of thing an ex SNP, now Tory right winger would lap up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchie
You'll have to forgive me for thinking that anything you type is a load of old *****.
I didn't say I agreed with it all of it did I ? but thanks for the input, Dave :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Which part did you disagree with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchie
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
i'm sure no one fell for that one :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That's unbelievable that a Scotsman would write that.
What's his name; Uncle Tom McLickarse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchie
Lord Haw-Haw's still here, I see.
So many generalisations and fantasies in there I don't know where to start. Another right-winger harking back to the good old days of the Empire.
Sent from my EML-L29 using Tapatalk
Union In Peril
'The pandemic has seeded the idea of a prime minister “who speaks for England alone” as relations between the four nations of the UK deteriorate amid “deep-rooted complacency”, a senior former civil servant has warned.
There is widespread ignorance towards the union, meaning ministers can be kept in the dark about major reforms with little consideration for the four nations, Philip Rycroft, the permanent secretary to the Brexit department until 2019, says in a report.'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-servant-warns
Interesting from former high ranking UK gov civil servant ...
Quote:
. Denying a referendum will change the Union
Despite assertions that the UK is a voluntary partnership, No 10 refuses to let the people decide again on independence
Ciaran Martin
Tuesday April 13 2021, 12.01am, The Times
In the middle of the noisiest election since the establishment of the Scottish parliament, there is one crucial, overlooked fact.
The position of the United Kingdom government is that there is no lawful, democratic path to achieving Scottish independence for an unspecified number of decades.
That’s regardless of how Scotland votes next month or beyond. Various ministers have speculated about the length of “quarantine” that must elapse from 2014 before Scotland is allowed to choose its future again.
For the Scotland secretary, it’s not until at least 2039, a quarter of a century from 2014. For the prime minister, it should be the same gap as between the two votes on Europe, taking us to 2055.
This marks an extraordinary change in our understanding of the Anglo-Scottish union. It was forged in pre-democratic times. But since at least the departure of most of Ireland a century ago, there’s been an implicit, and more recently explicit, understanding that any part of the British union could leave if it wants.
In 2011 David Cameron’s coalition was faced with a pro-referendum majority in the Scottish parliament, even though the issue did not feature much in the election campaign. Cameron wrote in his memoirs that a “referendum was unavoidable: people had voted for it; we would deliver it”. Thus came an agreement between London and Edinburgh. The key measure — a Section 30 order — is now treated as some sort of constitutional tablet of stone.
In fact, it was a hastily improvised arrangement to avoid Westminster imposing the rules of a referendum, or, worse, the whole thing ending up in court. What the deal reflected was a profound understanding that the historic Union was an equal partnership based on consent.
Tragically, Westminster lost interest in the Union the moment Scotland narrowly consented to remain in the UK. It might have been expected that London would pursue some agreed — or even imposed — rules about what staying in the Union meant, as Canada did after its own near-death experience with Quebec in 1995. But attention turned instead to England’s disquiets: first, on the day of the referendum result, with the announcement of English votes for English laws and then, fatefully, to Brexit.
Britain’s delicate constitutional balance has subsequently shattered. After 2014 it was briefly fashionable to describe the UK as”‘quasi-federal”. This nonsense was exploded by the Brexit vote which showed that a large majority of Scots could and would be overruled and ignored on a critically important issue.
The UK’s negotiating mandate was not a UK-wide one; it was what Downing Street could get past its English backbench MPs. The restraint with which England has historically treated its dominant position within the Union was abandoned.
The post-Brexit constitutional settlement is thus a “Greater England” one. It has demonstrated the impossibility of true federalism in the UK at a time when the core political arrangements that have sustained the Union over the centuries are collapsing. Just 20 years ago, the Blair cabinet contained a record number of Scottish MPs. Now, because of the SNP’s dominance, neither major UK party has a leading figure sitting for a Scottish constituency.
There’s no rulebook for what happens now. To resist a referendum, UK ministers are relying on the Yes campaign’s “once in a generation” soundbite from 2014. But that was just a slogan, with about as much constitutional standing as the £350 million for the NHS on the Brexit bus. It doesn’t bind today’s voters.
The best measure we have of Scotland’s consent for the Union remains its parliamentary elections. If there is a pro-referendum majority (and this is absolutely not the same thing as an SNP majority), there is no good reason to resist one. Nor is there any reason to alter a set of rules that commanded the confidence of both sides in 2014. Fear of a different result isn’t a reason to ignore Scotland’s election result.
What should be different is any referendum campaign. If nationalists again try to assert that independence means little change, voters should show their derision. Independence inevitably means some form of border with England, a different currency, a wait to join the EU, a huge fiscal challenge, and significant administrative disruption. The challenge for nationalists is to convince sceptics that joining the ranks of small, successful northern European states will be worth it. But voters should be equally dismissive of any repeat of Unionist assertions that an independent Scotland would be perpetually broke or alone.
Much would depend on choices made by Scottish voters and a sovereign Scottish government after independence. Demands that voters must know “exactly” what independence will mean are designed to be impossible to meet. Any major constitutional change involves risk, opportunity, certainty and unknowables, as this government knows better than most. Scottish voters will know enough to make an informed decision.
The more pressing question is whether Scotland is allowed to make this choice at all. If you support independence, you have always known that there is a path to it if you convince enough people to vote for it. That is what the UK government proposes to change. London can block a referendum even if Scotland votes for one.
But that changes the Union we know, based on consent, to one that survives only through force of law. Some democracies, such as Spain, do not allow votes on break-up. Spain does not claim to be a voluntary partnership of willing nations. Britain does. But is it?
Prof Ciaran Martin was the UK government’s lead civil servant during the negotiation of the Edinburgh Agreement talks which paved the way for the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. He is professor of Practice in the Management of Public Organisations at Oxford University.
👍Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I really hope Johnson refuses the referendum. It will still happen because that’s an unsustainable position but the refusal will be worth its weight in gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A refusal will be issued the minute the SNP win a majority. It's how long that lasts that will be interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’m not so sure. There are some senior people around him that will be smart enough to know how dumb a move it will be. It’s whether he takes their advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diclonius
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As someone who would likely vote now for Independence though, who wouldn't have before, the one thing that sits uneasily with me over this IndyRef2 now argument is how regularly can this battle be fought?
It is not something IMO that should be fought regularly as it is hugely disruptive and destabilising both for the people of the country and its economy and government.
What happens if 5 years down the line after independence folk think WTF and want to go back?
I think it was 40 years between referendums the last time?
That is too long but 20 seems a bit more realistic to me personally.
It is a huge huge deal far different to a change in a political party running the same country
It's a thorny one. I don't think you can legislate a fixed length of time between referendums when nothing else in the UK constitution is fixed. For example, the UK could repeal the Scotland act and abolish the Scottish parliament the day after any ref if it wanted to. Essentially, as Brexit has shown, if you have any majority in the House of Commons, you can ultimately do anything you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
I think it would be unreasonable to try and hold a second referendum without going back to the people at an election and winning a majority in parliament on a clear manifesto commitment. Ultimately, if it keeps failing, then people will get tired of it and move on.
As for what happens if people want to go back. If re-Unionism exists and can do the same thing, ie. put it in a manifesto, win an election and then win a referendum, then they will have won the right to go back to rUK and attempt to negotiate a way back. I can't see that ever happening, and obviously rUK may very well either tell Scotland to gtf or attempt to impose punitive terms, but that would be democracy, I guess. :dunno:
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
If the people of Scotland keep voting for a party with an independence referendum in its manifesto and then not voting for independence come the vote this could go on forever!
If following independence a reunionist party came to power with rejoining the UK in its manifesto then so be it. Off we go again lol. I'm not aware of it ever happening anywhere else in the world though!
If we want to rejoin and elect a majority of MSPs who promise a referendum on the issue, it'll happen. It'll be up to the former UK to decide whether they would want to admit us.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
Hopefully things settle down one way or another.
It is a hard oneQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Right now with a totally hopeless Labour Party, who are even more unelectable than they were under Corbyn as they are virtually invisible and the most unpopular Conservative Government I can ever remember in Scotland (and that includes Thatcher's government) it is impossible to see a way back.
What Scotland wants and what England wants/stands for have never been more different in my near 60 years and despite the fact I have huge concerns over our post-Independece economic prospects and the terms we would obtain on leaving I am of a mind to say go for it.
But, Labour & the Conservatives cant remain this bad forever, can they?
It doesn't seem that long ago that Independence was a long way from the looking possible?
Maybe there will be a groundswell for a way back one day but it could only be in the next 20 years I would say for folk who remember the "good old days" of the union as after that no-one would give up their sovereignty on a wing and a prayer.
Yet by my argument and belief it couldn't/ shouldn't be within that timescale as when Independence comes it will need to be given a chance to sink or swim.
If it wasn’t for Brexit I doubt we would be anywhere close to asking for another referendum yet. And once we have this one, no matter how it goes, there won’t be another for a very long time. It’s why the SNP are focusing so hard on building support for independence rather than campaigning for a referendum. Whenever it is held, it needs to be won.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you've nailed it, everyone I've spoken to that wants a 2nd referendum/independence seems to be of the same opinion. even one of my work colleagues who wants to remain wants a referendum to get the question asked and dealt with (he thinks it'll be a narrow win for remain).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I'm trying to think of what kind of major change could justify another referendum in the next 20 years if the next one doesn't result in independence? I'm struggling to see anything. If Scotland votes in a majority of independence parties but then again rejects independence in a referendum, then I think most Nats will have to accept that that was it for a couple of decades at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I would agree that Brexit is a potential game changer. A clear majority of Scots did not want to leave the EU, but we have left anyway. It's the predominant reason I would change my vote from No to Yes in another referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
More from Ciaran Martin (ex-UK civil service head honcho and author of Times article I pasted before) with guest appearance by Tom Devine. This should be required viewing for anyone interested in our Indy debate.
- the legality or otherwise of a referendum and more importantly, its legitimacy
- how the Union changes if it no longer requires the consent of Scots
- how the UK currently works and Scotland's place within it, as laid bare by Brexit
- the limits of further devolution
- why federalism is the deadest of dead ducks
- why the 2014 process is probably best replicated
- the dishonesty of both Yes' sunny uplands and No's Project Fear last time
All very clearly laid out. Worth your time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0RVMcZ98mU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0RVMcZ98mU
We will never want to go back!Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
Ask Ireland if they want to be ruled by Westminster again?
I'm shocked that so many in Scotland still think that it's "normal" to be ruled from another country especially one that is so different from us.
I’m halfway through and it’s a great listen. [emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: The hypothetical scenario of having a referendum after Independence to rejoin the UK.
Out of the dozens of countries & colonies that have become independent from another nation, how many of them have ever had a vote to rejoin?
The idea of that happening is a total nonsense.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we would, but it does beg an interesting question in the unlikely event that we did, would those on the independence side of the argument now and the right to hold IndyRef2, be as certain if the boot was on the other foot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven79
Isn't rejoining the EU (which I think we should never have left to be clear) a step down a similar path to being ruled by London, given the EU's desire which Britain has always resisted to gather more power centrally?
One of my difficulties over the entire thing is that people hold contrary positions on issues which have some similarity.
If we all agreed that we didn't want to be ruled by neither London nor Brussels, it would be far easier to understand.
I agree with someone who posted earlier that we are very different from England now, but I would argue that we are even more different from some of the other EU countries.
60+ countries have left the broad shoulders of westminster behind and I think there was one who did hold a referendum on rejoining, answered in the negative tho. Can't be bothered looking it up but it may have been one of the Caribbean islandsQuote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
I get where this idea comes from as there is an element of overlap between the two. However, I think there's a difference between the amount of decisions taken in London which subsequently effect us compared to that in Brussels - that along with differing downsides make them two different questions which are possible to get to two different answers I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
I can't find the stats, but I think c. 40% of spend in Scotland is from reserved decisions. I think it's a fair chunk more for income generated being from reserved decisions (tax rates basically, I think).
Whether those decisions are right/wrong or likely to change to any material degree with independence is worth considering, as is whether the economic upheaval in order to get to the point where these things could maybe be changed, either for better or worse.
I'm still yet to be told anything that the EU actually dictated to me, let alone anything that I shouldn't have liked and was worth the upheaval and downsides of leaving the EU.
Problem is, a narrow win for no won’t end it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Where as a narrow independence will. If “moving on” is the important thing for people, then Scotland has to “move on”.
It’s the only option. The Union is broken.
J
Exactly, and harping back to standing alone together and bearing the Nazis (Godwin’s Law, check) ain’t good enough IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven79
Scotland and England have been on divergent paths since the fall of Empire (Post WW2). Independence is just the next step on that path that India, Kenya, Malta, etc have taken. They just realised it earlier.
J
Have those in favour of the union given up the ghost on this thread? I get it can feel like a big pile on at times as they are in the minority. Or are they just biding their time until there’s meat on the bone and specifics to debate, anything else is just a repeat of what’s been debated 100 times before?
Couple of posters probably still recovering from the eyepopping, jawdropping allegations against Sturgeon not popping any eyes or dropping any jaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
Or even being true. To be fair to them, the union is becoming ever more indefensible and I can’t blame them for no longer trying.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The EU and the UK are very different beasts though. The EU constrains its members within an overarching set of rules but they're still all independent, sovereign countries with all the powers to set the vast majority of their own domestic and international policies. And when it comes to setting the EU's rules, the most important decision making body is the Council of Ministers where all members are directly represented, there is qualified majority voting and a veto over the most important issues. The EU Commission (effectively its executive body) is totally subservient to the CoM. Take, for example, the Brexit negs: Barnier (from the Commission) was given a mandate agreed by all the member states via the CoM and could not go outside the terms of that mandate without going back to the member states for approval.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSEJVT
EU countries are not really "ruled from Brussels" in the sense that there is an all powerful pan-EU government in Brussels handing down decisions. They are ruled jointly in co-operation with all the other members. Yes, Germany and France individually have more influence than Ireland and Denmark. But Ireland and Denmark can push their own agendas and band together with say, Netherlands, Latvia and Estonia, in combination to block something they don't like. Small countries tend to punch above their weight.
Compare and contrast to the UK, we send MPs to Westminster but unless they happen to be members of the governing party, they have absolutely zero influence. We have a devolved parliament with a very limited set of powers compared to an EU member state and that can be overridden on anything at any time, or abolished completely, by a simple majority in the UK parliament and that majority could contain 0 Scottish MPs, it would make no difference.
I don't necessarily think that pooling sovereignty is a bad thing but there is a balance to be struck.
That's what they said about Québec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
2 refs 15 years apart where Oui got 40% and then 49.5%. It was generally assumed Québec indy was just a matter of time but it hasn't happened.
Scotland/UK and Québec/Canada are hugely different of course, but nothing is inevitable.
New Panelbase poll has
Yes - 51%
No - 49%
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure about the demographics of the Quebec vote or support for independence but when you look at support in Scotland for the union it is literally dying out (i know that's a crass analogy) however the only age group that are staunch unionists is the oldest one while support for independence gets stronger as you go down the age groups. It's unstoppable now and just a matter of when, not if.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Personally I still read here but I rarely post. I have typed a number of posts and have decided not to submit.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
I feel that its not really worthwhile as both points of view are so entrenched and its nigh on impossible to have a debate.
The post from OzyHibs 2 mins before you suggests its still very tightQuote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
I'm optimistic, but Yes could easily lose a ref held now. And who knows what could happen in the years it would take to get a 3rd one?
I agree and this is why I think Sturgeon is delaying until she feels a win is certain. I dont believe if she had a majority of MSPs but less than or around 50% of the vote on 7th May that she would seek a referendum as a 2nd defeat would put an end to the Independence debate for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I actually think Boris should hold a referendum asap after 6th May to get this decided one way or the other.
I'm not disputing that, merely point out that as each year goes by the staunchest supporters of the union drop off the electoral roll (either through age or in the case of rangers fans Darwinism) and are replaced by a younger age group who according to available statistics are more pro independence. Thus my assertion that it's only a matter of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
I'd encourage you to just hit the button and post them, as I find your pro-union postings and general questioning on here to be worthwhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
Obviously I disagree with your viewpoint but I find the pro-union posters on here to be pretty good and I don't think the standard of debate is all that bad.
Positions are fairly entrenched and tankers take a long time to turn, but many people are prepared to question their own side. Not all, but many are.
In hindsight, he probably should have granted permission the first time he was asked, with the caveat "You must hold it within 6 months". Even without COVID, that would probably have done the trick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
What would be his slogan though? Get The Union Done? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skol
Too many words. Three is the magic number.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
"Keep colonies going"? "Keep Jocks down"? "Know your place"? They will come up with something snappyQuote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
Probably ‘Empire strikes back’.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
Wish I'd thought of that one!!Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenlex
"Uhm... Ah... Uhm"
I was reading the below articles, and I've a couple of questions around the differences in taxation between the UK and Scottish Governments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56675132
https://fraserofallander.org/number-...xt-parliament/
I knew that income tax powers had been devolved, however I thought this was 'partially devolved' in so much that a slight change in income tax rates was allowed in order to work as a 'top up' to the Scottish Government budget. However, following the quote below from the second article it seems it might be more significant than that.
"Of course, UK income tax policy does not apply in Scotland. The Scottish Government has the powers to set all rates and bands for Scottish Income tax. Furthermore, although the setting of the Personal Allowance is technically reserved to Westminster, the Scottish Government could, if it wanted, set a higher effective tax-free amount of income tax by creating a zero-rate band of income tax in Scotland.
So, in principle, when it comes to Scottish income tax policy in the next parliament, anything is possible. But in reality, the UK policy will frame the scope for manoeuvre."
I understand the second part of that quote states that this is 'in principle', but if indeed the Scottish Government already has significant devolved Income and Business Rates Tax Powers, and with regards to the topic of attracting international/external investment if we were to become independent, what more could the Scottish Government do that it couldn't essentially do already?
Is the argument purely down to being able to control corporation tax as well? As far as I'm aware, controlling business rates gives the current devolved government the power to attract manufacturing plants/financial services/offices etc here with for example, the promise of a business rates tax freeze for 2/3/5/10 (or longer) years. (I understand I may be simplifying things here, but I hope the jist of my argument comes through.)
Of course the relative benefits of lowering corp tax can be seen in the likes of Ireland, where many of the tech companies have their European/International HQs in turn supplying lots of highly paid roles. However what is also obvious to most is the significant differences living standards felt by many of the people living there.
I'm not necessarily saying that I would want an independent Scotland to copy this particular set up (far from it) but attracting international investment of some capacity I'm assuming would be a priority none the less. In effect, what do we need to make this happen (attracting foreign investment) that we can't already do now?
Gonnae no daeitQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
It's also about National Insurance and VAT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callyballybe
E'ers NI could be reduced from the current UK level, to give us a competitive edge.
VAT could also be, albeit that may not be wise in the long-term if we have aspirations to join the EU.
There would also be scope for tax "sweetheart deals" with potential investors.
Business rates are counted as a property tax. Not all income tax is devolved: tax on earnings is, tax on savings and dividends isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callyballybe
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/image...bn198_fig2.jpg
In terms of attracting investment, the traditional thing to do worldwide is bribe companies to come. :greengrin So tax breaks, grants etc.
Aside from that, the best thing we could to attract inward investment is get back in the European single market. We might attract a significant amount of relocation from rUK as well, if we're sharpish about it.
It would also be handy to have an immigration policy that would help attract lots of good people. We have a big demographic problem with an ageing, unhealthy population. Lots of young taxpayers would definitely help with that.
Yes we Can’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
J
3 newly qualified yes voters in my house since the last ref.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
It's absolutely inevitable, the only demographic that favours the current situation is the old folk. This is from last year but it won't have changed that much. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c5ee9acf12.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk
On Today on R4 just now but, did I hear right? Did they just say The Proclaimers are from Leith? I mean, we’d be glad to have them but it’s not quite correct.
Born in Leith?Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
Only a year and a bit to go before I have to change my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
The female/ male one surprises me tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
I'd have thought it would be the other way round - females being more cautious, males being more prepared to take the risk.
Maybe females have quite sensibly realised earlier that the greater risk lies with tethering your future to the dwindling English empire and cutting yourself off from Europe than the alternative?
Also funny regarding the demographic of this site - which I would say is overwhelmingly male and in favour of independence. Or is it just that the unionists (many of whom don't appreciate being called such) are quieter in the face of what appears to be a larger and noisier pro-independence consensus?
The female numbers must have shifted from previous surveys, in 2014 it was the other way round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk
Probably the positive effect of having Sturgeon in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://amp.theguardian.com/commenti...mpression=true
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk