Scottish Inderef Mk2 - lets have a civilized discussion folks.

[Superficial]

Because taxes generated from trade are not confined to the company tax of the trading company and the income tax of the employees like you said. Bringing money into a country through trade will generate more than that.



People dont just put their money into bank accounts though - they buy things. Most of that spending will be done locally in the country where the live generating further taxes.
It's wrong for you to ignore any knock-on benefits from trade.

With all due respect you are ignoring the meat of the argument. As I already said we can argue about the amount of taxes raised (and the knock on benefits) but we must also agree that the relationship with the rUK brings 4 x as much benefit BEFORE we include the Barnett Subsidy which is DIRECTLY used to finances public services in Scotland.

It would be simpler to put a figure on the amount you think the EU trade relationship brings...then multiply it by 4 /4.5 for the UK then ad Barnett.

 

[Superficial]

when your talking about trade are you talking about how much trade scotland currently does with the rest of the UK and the EU? or UK trade as a whole within the UK and then with EU?

becuase thos figures would change dramatically when UK leaves the EU. and they would change dramatically again if scotland became independent and joined the EU.

cause and effect. the reason why they aren't doing them now because there is no need for english companies to move to scotland to gain access to the free market. they have it already on their door step.


you could use your argument to say for instance 10 years ago someone could have said. no need to worry about syrian migration. because if they wanted to leave syria they would have left already and people would be leaving today. you then have a war break out (cause) and now mass exodus of syria and surrounding areas (effect).

england is leaving the EU that is a fact. when that happens Britian will be worse off. that is also a fact as it will no longer have free trade with the rest of Europe.

if scotland broke off then joined the EU then yes you would see a positive effect for Scotland.

cause and effect. just because it's not happening already doesn't mean it will never happen. w need to have a few things put in place first like become independent and join the EU whilst retaining the £.

I've said clearly what I mean - that there is no chance that this migration North would make up for the billions lost because of ending Scotlands relationship with the UK. You can surmise that Scotland would get all these English companies moving north (that is aridicuous to be honest - geography is really not on your side not to mention the competition from other nations in the EU) if you like how would you come to the conclusion that the taxes raised would replace the huge sums that Scotland gets right now with it's largest trading partner by far.

 

[StriderX]

I wouldn't even want to retain the pound, it'd be far more to the benefit to London than it would to Scotland... the EURO has other advantages in that it compares well with Pound anyway, so we might as well just take it if it came to joining the EU.

 

[touch]

With all due respect you are ignoring the meat of the argument. As I already said we can argue about the amount of taxes raised (and the knock on benefits) but we must also agree that the relationship with the rUK brings 4 x as much benefit BEFORE we include the Barnett Subsidy which is DIRECTLY used to finances public services in Scotland.

I agree that trade from UK and trade from EU will both have proportionally the same knock-on benefits.
I was specifically referring to the point you made about the barnett forumla being worth more than EU trade because we must ignore any benefits which dont come directly from the company tax of the trading company or the income tax of those employed directly by that company - I disagree with that.

 

[platypus]

It's quite good.

Almost as funny as may trying to argue that Sturgeon calling for a referendum to leave the union was irresponsible and damaging to our economic futures. Whilst presiding over the cluster**** that is Brexit; irresponsibly damaging both our economic present and future.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

With all due respect you are ignoring the meat of the argument. As I already said we can argue about the amount of taxes raised (and the knock on benefits) but we must also agree that the relationship with the rUK brings 4 x as much benefit BEFORE we include the Barnett Subsidy which is DIRECTLY used to finances public services in Scotland.

It would be simpler to put a figure on the amount you think the EU trade relationship brings...then multiply it by 4 /4.5 for the UK then ad Barnett.

so are you saying that if scotland became independent it would no longer be allowed to trade with the rUK? therefore their only trade would be with the EU?

that is laughable if so. they would still have all that trade and it's benefits.

 

[daver]

Now lets say I am a company that makes and sells bagless hoovers for instance. I could sell to 75 million without any duties or move to scotland and then have the potential to sell to 750 million freely without having to pay duties, etc. What do you think I would do? That is what the union is 1 big market. A market manufacturers want to be able to sell to without additional costs as it keeps their profits higher and their cost price lower. Increase the price of the product means reduced sales which hits their profits.

They already moved their manufacturing facilities to the far east about 10 years ago and pay EU import duties so I doubt they would bat an eyelid. Their UK based facilities are research etc.

 

[Superficial]

I agree that trade from UK and trade from EU will both have proportionally the same knock-on benefits.
I was specifically referring to the point you made about the barnett forumla being worth more than EU trade because we must ignore any benefits which dont come directly from the company tax of the trading company or the income tax of those employed directly by that company - I disagree with that.

I totally respect the logic of your argument but I actually do still think the direct tax money from the Barnett formula (ignoring rUK trade) is worth more in direct taxation terms than EU trade but I fully agree that it is an argument that could go on for a while.

In any case, once you include rUK trade my argument is that Scotland could not hope to be better off with an EU relationship matching the one it has today against the llos of rUK relationship. It would be devastating in my view even if you add some element of migration north from English companies.

 

[Superficial]

so are you saying that if scotland became independent it would no longer be allowed to trade with the rUK? therefore their only trade would be with the EU?

that is laughable if so. they would still have all that trade and it's benefits.

No one said that, you just made it up because you have no logical argument to bring.

I am saying Scotland would be FORCED BY THE EU to impose trade tariffs if no decent trade deal was made with the UK. FORCED. Ergo REDUCED trade not a total loss of trade. the far bigger loss, as I said, would be the Barnett subsidy in direct cash terms - resulting in massive cuts. No two ways about it. total direct tax losses to Scotland in the region of £17-20 billion which would need to be made up with the assumed additional monies from English companies basing in Scotland for EU access. A tall order.

the Catch 22 being that the independence referendum is predicated on there being no single market access or near equivalence so therefore justifying a referendum/independence in the eyes of the SNP and so if a decent UK/EU trade agreement was made there would be no cause for a referendum on independence.

 

[touch]

I totally respect the logic of your argument but I actually do still think the direct tax money from the Barnett formula (ignoring rUK trade) is worth more in direct taxation terms than EU trade but I fully agree that it is an argument that could go on for a while.

If, by "direct taxation" on the EU trade, you mean specifically the company + employee tax from companies trading with EU then you're probably right. It just seems to me that it's a lot more complicated than simply adding up the company tax of the companies trading with EU and ignoring any secondary benefits of the money brought into the country by them.
Yes, we should leave it at that - it's impossible to calculate any exact figures for this so is a somewhat pointless argument.

 

[Superficial]

If, by "direct taxation" on the EU trade, you mean specifically the company + employee tax from companies trading with EU then you're probably right. It just seems to me that it's a lot more complicated than simply adding up the company tax of the companies trading with EU and ignoring any secondary benefits of the money brought into the country by them.
Yes, we should leave it at that - it's impossible to calculate any exact figures for this so is a somewhat pointless argument.

Well said. In my defence I do try and use facts and figures from official sources and have done in this thread but when It comes from direct taxation from trade it is hard and could result in a farcical argument best avoided. To try and avoid this I honestly feel that assumptions I made about direct taxes raised were generous bearing In my a TOTAL tax take for Scotland of 53 Billion.

 

[booyaka]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Now is not the time - I think that's perfectly understandable. How can the people of Scotland make an informed choice as what is better for their future without actually knowing what being out of the EU looks like? You will always have the raving nationalists that want out at any cost, but in reality, pushing a indy ref on us when people have no clear path/idea/financial implications (good or bad) for the future of being out of the EU is just silly.

 

[touch]

Now is not the time - I think that's perfectly understandable.

It's perfectly understandable for her to think that but it is going to cause problems if she is dictating her opinion to the people of scotland*.
It's all talk at the moment but if it passes the Scottish parliament and they formally request permission to hold a referendum, will she still reject it? The people of Scotland want a 2nd vote* and if Westminster overrules the will of the Scots then it's just going to swing things more in favour of independence.

*I know, I keep saying "the will of the people" when not everyone wants it. The elected MSPs have (will) vote for it next week and then it becomes the "will of the people".

 

[jjwf]

It's perfectly understandable for her to think that but it is going to cause problems if she is dictating her opinion to the people of scotland*.
It's all talk at the moment but if it passes the Scottish parliament and they formally request permission to hold a referendum, will she still reject it? The people of Scotland want a 2nd vote* and if Westminster overrules the will of the Scots then it's just going to swing things more in favour of independence.

*I know, I keep saying "the will of the people" when not everyone wants it. The elected MSPs have (will) vote for it next week and then it becomes the "will of the people".

She's not going to reject it, she's saying you can have indyref2 after Brexit is sorted. Its not the will of the people anyway, more people are in favour of not having another referendum than are.

 

[Vern1961]

What could the worst case outcome of this be (just musing)?

Sturgeon declares UDI and attempts to hold a referendum anyway?

May dissolves the Scottish Parliament along with any and all devolved authority they have.

Sturgeon defies this and attempts to continue.

Police and possibly armed forces therefore intervene and Sturgeon prosecuted for treason (though these days not what it was when the usual penalty was an 8am trudge to the gallows).

Civil war - rUK vs Scotland, depending where the Scottish regiments decide their loyalty lies.

 

[SlyReaper]

It's perfectly understandable for her to think that but it is going to cause problems if she is dictating her opinion to the people of scotland*.
It's all talk at the moment but if it passes the Scottish parliament and they formally request permission to hold a referendum, will she still reject it? The people of Scotland want a 2nd vote* and if Westminster overrules the will of the Scots then it's just going to swing things more in favour of independence.

*I know, I keep saying "the will of the people" when not everyone wants it. The elected MSPs have (will) vote for it next week and then it becomes the "will of the people".

What May is saying makes sense. If EU membership is the crucial material change in circumstances that warrants a second independence referendum, then in order to make an informed choice, you have to know what the UK's relationship with the EU is going to be. Right now, that's something nobody knows.

I know some don't care. For some, leaving the EU is a red line that has been crossed, so they'll vote Yes regardless. But that view does not appear to be shared by the majority of Scottish voters. When you include the people who didn't vote in the EU referendum (numbers can be found here: http://www.electoralcommission.org....u-referendum/electorate-and-count-information), the breakdown is as follows:
* Leave: 25.5%
* Remain: 41.7%
* Didn't vote: 32.8%

Conclusion: more than half of Scottish voters are at least ambivalent about the EU. I would suggest a large number of those people, and more than a few who did vote Remain, might like the details on the UK's relationship with the EU before they're asked to decide on independence.

Recall that during the EU referendum, a common complaint was that people were being asked to make an important decision with incomplete information.

 

[StriderX]

What could the worst case outcome of this be (just musing)?

Sturgeon declares UDI and attempts to hold a referendum anyway?

May dissolves the Scottish Parliament along with any and all devolved authority they have.

Sturgeon defies this and attempts to continue.

Police and possibly armed forces therefore intervene and Sturgeon prosecuted for treason (though these days not what it was when the usual penalty was an 8am trudge to the gallows).

Civil war - rUK vs Scotland, depending where the Scottish regiments decide their loyalty lies.

Well a truly worst case scenario is the seizure of an almost active Trident Sub... that wouldn't happen though... would it .

 

[tinder]

The problem you have with Scottish politics is a large majority of Scotland that are too stupid to vote or understand the information being presented for the argument to stay or go.
.

The same could be said for any democracy. Intelligence is no indicator of comprehension of peoples desires and needs..as you have so eloquently demonstrated.

 

[ubersonic]

When you include the people who didn't vote in the EU referendum (numbers can be found here: http://www.electoralcommission.org....u-referendum/electorate-and-count-information), the breakdown is as follows:
* Leave: 25.5%
* Remain: 41.7%
* Didn't vote: 32.8%

That's incorrect, it should be:
* Leave: 23.15%
* Remain: 37.75%
* Didn't vote: 39.1%

 

[V F]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Now is not the time - I think that's perfectly understandable. How can the people of Scotland make an informed choice as what is better for their future without actually knowing what being out of the EU looks like? You will always have the raving nationalists that want out at any cost, but in reality, pushing a indy ref on us when people have no clear path/idea/financial implications (good or bad) for the future of being out of the EU is just silly.

Heh! Sturgeon must be seriously cheesed off.