egafd.com

I am starting to warm to Nicola..

I'm not.

Sturgeon like that smug toerag Salmond spends nearly all her time in true nationalist style blaming all of Scotland's ills on Westminster and those nasty Tory and Labour governments.

Not surprisingly she is less forthcoming on the following:

1. The SNP made a prediction of oil income in 2016 to 2017 which was deemed hopelessly optimistic, prior to the referendum vote. The latest Office of Budget Responsibility estimate is that revenue will be 10% of the SNP's estimate.

2. Oil plays a huge part of the Scottish economy. Scotland's banking assets stand at twelve times its national output more than two and half times bigger than the UK reliance on the banking sector. The over-reliance on these two sectors represents a huge risk to the Scottish economy.

3. THe SNP has been able to raise income tax for years to alleviate all the bad things those nasty Labour and Tory governments have done. Has it done that? No. Why not? It would have made them unpopular. So much easier to blame Westminster for everything.

Vote Braveheart, Vote SNP for an independent Scotland.

Hoots mon. Nasty, smug, arrogant, overpaid and a blatant liar. Wonder why she and her mentor McSalmond never used their tax raising powers? After all Scotland has so many world class blue chip companies and most of the planet's oil reserves under Clackmananshire.....

Where to start.....

- Everyone's short-term oil projections were way off, very much including the SNP's. We're basically discussing here who was very shit and who was very, very shit at projections. Of course, if the hundreds upon hundreds of billions raised for the Treasury over the past few decades had been put into an oil fund a la Norway etc, this wouldn't be much of an issue. However, the governments over that time chose a much different approach.... And it all went into the UK bank/spending account, so our great "family of nations" received the proceeds.

- The following graph from the BBC shows relative %ages on the (very important) GVA measure of the Scottish/UK economy make up ( ). It's actually broadly similar between Scotland and the UK. An HM Treasury paper produced for the referendum stated banking accounts for c8% and an IFS paper states the equivalent for oil & gas is 15% in Scotland. By contrast, research by the City of London shows 23% of London's economy relies on financial services alone. I think that context is useful.

- The window of opportunity for the SNP to have raised income tax is actually relatively small. It would have been virtually impossible to do so during it's first (minority government) term. Strictly, it's had about 4 years to do so with a parliamentary majority, but given (1) it would take years in lead time, (2) huge cost to set up/admin cost (offset against the increased revenue, blunting the effect!), (3) various other inter-related reasons, it's not that simple and wouldn't have happened by now even if the SNP decided early in the current parliament to do so. Of course, DJ is right that the electorate wouldn't like it on the whole. I'm sure that was a leading factor. However, it's more nuanced than people may infer from reading the comments above. See for a very brief (oversimplified?) overview. Plus, per George Osborne's economic plan at that time, we'd actually be in surplus by now so why would they take that step since austerity should be over!?!?


I don't know if anyone else saw Nicola Sturgeon's speech today at the SNP conference, but give it a go. DJ in particular, you might find many of her policies would help take a Labour-led government back more towards where I suspect you'd like it to be on the political spectrum (keeping the NHS public, investment in education, no WMDs with the ?100bn price tag, crack down on tax avoidance etc). Arginald, I don't expect it would change your view one bit (which is fair enough - you have your politics and that's fine).

"Where to start....."

I know how you feel.....

"Everyone's short-term oil projections were way off, very much including the SNP's. We're basically discussing here who was very shit and who was very, very shit at projections."

True, projections are fraught with difficulty. However, it does not take a genius to realise what appears to be happening with oil prices and revenue. In 2012-13 revenues were around ?5 billion (40%) lower than in the previous year. The oil price has halved in the last year. The last Osborne budget threw the oil companies a ?1.3 billion tax cut in the hope that it might persuade the oil companies to carry on with their investment in the sector and not sack tens of thousands. Whether this works has yet to be seen.

"The following graph from the BBC shows relative %ages on the (very important) GVA measure of the Scottish/UK economy make up ( http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/625/media/ ... _624gr.gif ). It's actually broadly similar between Scotland and the UK. An HM Treasury paper produced for the referendum stated banking accounts for c8% and an IFS paper states the equivalent for oil & gas is 15% in Scotland. By contrast, research by the City of London shows 23% of London's economy relies on financial services alone. I think that context is useful."

The has nothing to do with my point which you have clearly misunderstood. I am not talking about over-reliance in terms of contribution to GVA I am talking about risk factors if say the bank sector goes kaput. The UK Government supported the injection of over ?45 billion into the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008 and offered the bank a further ?275 billion of guarantees and state support to protect financial systems. The total level of this support would have been more than double the total size of Scotland?s economy in that year.

"The window of opportunity for the SNP to have raised income tax is actually relatively small......huge cost to set up/admin cost "

The idea that the capability to introduce a 3p increase in income tax to fund expenditure would be "eaten up" by the cost of administration appears somewhat bizarre to me given the huge amounts of money such an increase would generate. On that basis one wonders what the rationale would be for any tax change.

"Plus, per George Osborne's economic plan at that time, we'd actually be in surplus by now so why would they take that step since austerity should be over!?!?"

Ah very funny. The SNP believing in Osborne leading us all to the promised land!

"DJ in particular, you might find many of her policies would help take a Labour-led government back more towards where I suspect you'd like it to be on the political spectrum (keeping the NHS public, investment in education, no WMDs with the ?100bn price tag, crack down on tax avoidance etc). "

Surprisingly I am aware of the SNP policies. Keeping the NHS public? Well the NHS is devolved to Scotland. In Wales, run by Labour, none of the Tory's Health and Social Care bill apply. In Westminster, the Labour party voted against Lansley's bill.

Investment in education? That is devolved to Scotland and Tristram Hunt has outlined Labour's policies for education here


As for cracking down on tax avoidance, which political party has argued that they have no intention of "cracking down on tax avoidance" and it is not their policy?

Thanks for the comments. In reply:

- If the bank sector goes kaput under the status quo, everyone is fucked: see 2008-present. If the sector goes kaput in an independent Scotland, I'd much rather be in Scotland than in England! For example, RBS would have re-domiciled it's holding company to England, and so rUK Govt & ultimately BoE would be holding the cash-strapped baby. This is exacerbated by the vast majority of RBS et al's customers (mortgage holders etc) being outwith Scotland, with a huge number in England. 2008 all over again.

- Re implementing 3p tax powers.... Many people have analysed this and found it not quite so bizarre. For example, a University Professor at comments on both the sums and the politics.

- "The SNP believing in Osborne leading us all to the promised land". I'm not sure the exact point being made, so am not sure if/how to respond.

- My point re SNP impact on policies was UK-wide; they want to help nudge Labour to the left in certain areas. Track down Nicola Sturgeon's conference speech; that will explain better than I can here. Labour voted against Lansley, but were very active indeed with private sector involvement in NHS England over their 3 terms. If you are pro-tuition fees, adverse to substantial min wage rises/living wage, pro WMDs, anti-EMA, pro-Tory level/timescale of austerity cuts etc then I've misunderstood your personal politics, for which I apologise/acknowledge my error. (I'm not suggesting you should support the SNP or it's policies, more that I perceived you as a little more on the left of where Labour currently sits).

- Re tax avoidance: only 3 parties have had the power (over several decades) to tackle it.

"If the bank sector goes kaput under the status quo, everyone is fucked: see 2008-present."

No. What you have not understood is if the banks had gone kaput in an independent Scotland, the country would not have been so much as "fucked" as totally bankrupt. This was clearly not the case in the UK.

" If the sector goes kaput in an independent Scotland, I'd much rather be in Scotland than in England! For example, RBS would have re-domiciled it's holding company to England, and so rUK Govt & ultimately BoE would be holding the cash-strapped baby. "

You seriously think the rUK government would allow this scenario to occur in which Scotland pass a nearly bankrupt bank to the rUK and the rUK government say "Thank you very much, we are more than happy to take on all the debts" of the RBS because they have moved their head office?

"Re implementing 3p tax powers.... Many people have analysed this and found it not quite so bizarre. For example, a University Professor at https://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com ... able-rate/ comments on both the sums and the politics."

Ah, a university professor. He must be right. Mind such views did not put the SNP off. In the run up to the first Holyrood election in 1999 , the SNP campaigned for the Scottish Parliament to use its powers not to implement the 1p income tax cut brought in by the Labour government at Westminster. The policy did not appeal to the voters so the SNP dropped it, just as they dropped any attempt whatsoever to increase income tax in Scotland.

""The SNP believing in Osborne leading us all to the promised land". I'm not sure the exact point being made, so am not sure if/how to respond."

My point is absolutely clear. You state that given Osborne was due to end the deficit by now, why should the SNP introduce tax rises when Osborne had told them austerity would be at an end by the completion of this parliament. The idea that you believe the SNP would have been convinced by this is quaint.

"but were very active indeed with private sector involvement in NHS England over their 3 terms."

There is a difference between using private sector involvement in certain cases to ensure waiting times are met as opposed to putting up every contract for bidding by private companies.

As a general comment, you appear extremely gullible as far as the SNP are concerned. For example spending on private healthcare nearly tripled in Grampian in 2013, despite the health board assuring the public that it had no problems with waiting lists.

"If you are pro-tuition fees, adverse to substantial min wage rises/living wage, pro WMDs, anti-EMA, pro-Tory level/timescale of austerity cuts etc then I've misunderstood your personal politics, for which I apologise/acknowledge my error. "

In suggesting that all of the above are Labour policies and therefore, the SNP is needed to nudge Labour left, you are talking utter nonsense.

The Labour party voted against the tripling of fees and are discussing reducing them. The SNP charge English students tuition fees. The Labour government in Wales has a completely different approach to student fees. The Labour government introduced an Education Maintenance Allowance. The Labour run Welsh government has an EMA running. Miliband has a completely different approach to reducing the deficit compared to Osborne e.g. the use of capital investment schemes.

"Re tax avoidance: only 3 parties have had the power (over several decades) to tackle it."

This has got absolutely nothing to do with my point which is that all parties say there is a need to reduce tax avoidance but very few do anything meaningful.

number 6 wrote:

> I am starting to warm to Nicola..


No real shock....

DJ,

Right, at the outset, let me say that I wish you well. And, however it may come across, I assure you I only have positive motives in making this post.

But you could try turning down the angry man/vitriol once in a while. It clouds some good and promising points you make.

Also, phrases like "My point is absolutely clear" should read "My point is absolutely clear - to me". Further, peppering your points with the likes of "you are talking utter nonsense" and other such interchangeable emotive phraseology (in this thread or elsewhere) doesn't help matters much. Just say "no", then make your counter point. Otherwise, it side tracks and/or closes down legitimate debate, causes forum "beefs" (ad nauseum), and perhaps helps explain why some just can't be arsed with this place any more. Let's try to avoid using those same tactics employed by many professional politicians and partisan media.

This doesn't mean we're all best pals and slavishly follow Debrett's. And I enjoy expertly-deployed expletives as much as the next cunt. But too often it's like a branch meeting on here, where the person who shouts the loudest, longest and most aggressively/persistently (relatively speaking) wins out. Or at least that is how that "winner" may perceive it.